THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 19390 and 19524 of 2002 COMMON ORDER: Both these Writ Petitions can be decided by a common order, as they raise substantially the same question, namely as to whether the respondents are justified in not re-determining the amount of compensation payable to the writ petitioners, in terms of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the lands belonging to them which stood acquired under a common notification, duly taking into account the order and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nandyal in L.A.O.P.No. 107 of 1985, dated 14.03.1986. The case of the writ petitioners is that their lands in an extent of Acs.1.88 cents, each, in Survey No. 193/2 of Mulasagaram Village, Nandyal Mandal stood acquired, along with several other lands, for a public purpose and the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No. 26 of 1983 on 29.08.1983 in respect of the entire extent of land that stood acquired by the notification by fixing the market value at Rs.6,000/- per acre. It is pointed out that some of the other land holders have sought for a reference to be made for fixing an appropriate market value, to the learned Subordinate Judge’s Court, Nandyal in terms of Section 18 of the Act and accordingly, the learned Subordinate Judge decided L.A.O.P. Nos. 107 of 1985, 116 of 1985, 126 of 1985 and 135 of 1985 by his judgment dated 14.03.1986 enhancing the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per acre. Thereafter, the claimants in those O.Ps. have raised cross-objections, when the State Government carried the matter in appeal to this Court against the judgment rendered by the learned subordinate Judge on 14.03.1986. However, this Court has confirmed the Award of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nandyal and rejected the cross-objections. Hence, the amount of compensation determined by the Subordinate Judge bas become final. The case of the petitioners is that along with a certified copy of the judgment rendered in L.A.O.P.No. 107 of 1985 and batch, a detailed representation has been submitted on 18.06.1986 seeking payment of compensation at the same rate as was determined by the learned Subordinate Judge with reference to the above lands covered by the same notification, but however, the same has not been considered. Further, it is submitted that in terms of Section 28-A of the Act, the Collector is under an obligation to re-determine the amount of compensation within three months from the date of the Award of the Court. Therefore, they sought for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to re-determine the amount of compensation. When the matters were called on the last occasion, on 03.06.2010, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Having heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, the matters were posted for judgment today, but still, none appears for the writ petitioners, to avail the opportunity. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal –cum- the Land Acquisition Officer has filed a detailed counter-affidavit in the matter. It was not disputed that an Award was passed fixing the market value of the land at Rs.6,000/- per acre. It was further not disputed that some of the landholders have sought for a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act for determination of the value of the land acquired. It was also not disputed that the learned Subordinate Judge, Nandyal has passed judgment in O.P. No. 107 of 1985 and batch enhancing the compensation amount, but however, it has been denied that the petitioners have submitted any such application within the time limit prescribed by Section 28A of the Act, as there is no such application submitted by the petitioners on 13.06.1986 seeking re-determination of the amount of compensation. The petitioners were put to strict proof of filing any such application on 13.06.1986. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, the Revenue Divisional Officer has pointed out that on 13.06.1986, the petitioners could not have submitted any such representation enclosing thereto the certified copy of the judgment rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge in O.P.No. 107 of 1985 and batch, inasmuch as the certified copy of the said judgment was made available by the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Nandyal only on 18.06.1986. Therefore, if it were really true that the petitioners have submitted a representation on 13.06.1986, as asserted by them, it was impossible for them to have enclosed a certified copy of the judgment rendered in O.P.No. 107 of 1985, as of that date. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioners that they did submit such an application within the three months’ period specified in terms of Section 28-A of the Act is a factually inaccurate and incorrect statement. Section 28-A of the Act compels the Collector to re-determine the amount of compensation, when an Award is made by the Court enhancing the amount of compensation in favour of any of the persons, whose land is also covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, it was abundantly made clear that the application seeking re-determination of the compensation amount in terms of Section 28-A has got to be submitted in writing to the Collector, within three months from the date of the Award of the Court. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 28-A makes it clear that the time consumed by the registry/office of the Court for furnishing the certified copy will be excluded from computation of the 3 month period. In the instant case, the award in O.P. No. 107 of 1985 was said to have been passed on 14.03.1986. Therefore, the three months’ period has got to be calculated from the said date. The time consumed for furnishing the certified copy by the registry is liable to be excluded therefrom, but however, the basic requirement of submission of a request in writing to the Collector for re-determining the compensation cannot be altogether dispensed with. When the respondents have challenged the petitioners to establish the fact that they have submitted any such application to the Collector, for the latter to undertake the obligation of re-determining the compensation, they have failed to establish the factum of making such a request. Without, thus, discharging the initial burden that was lying with them, they cannot find fault with the Collector for not re-determining the amount of compensation. A writ of mandamus, therefore, cannot be issued to the Collector compelling him to re-determine the amount of compensation. I, therefore, do not find any justification for issuing the writ as prayed for inasmuch as the petitioners have failed to establish the fact that they did make a request in writing to the Collector for re- determining the compensation, in terms of the judgment rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nandyal in O.P.No. 107 of 1985, within the time limit specified under Section 28A of the Act. The Writ Petitions, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 11th June 2010 ksld