IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17230 of 2002 Between: Smt. Sajjan Chowdary … Petitioner AND The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-I, Mamillapalli, Cuddapah Dist. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17230 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside endorsement dated 28.12.1999 of the respondent, whereby he refused to re-determine the amount of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.06 cents in Sy.No.79/1 of Mamillapalli Village, Kadapa District belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner of the abovementioned land, which along with other extents were acquired under notiﬁcation dated 05.11.1985 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer on 21.03.1988. Some of the land owners covered by the same notiﬁcation got the dispute referred under Section 18 of the Act, which was registered as LAOP.No.3 of 1989 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadapa. By order and decree dated 17.12.1990 the said Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.140/- to Rs.1,000/- per cent along with all the statutory beneﬁts. The petitioner claimed to have made an application under Section 28-A of the Act on 18.03.1991. As the said application was not considered, the petitioner ﬁled WP.No.13163 of 1991 in this Court, which was disposed of on 21.07.1999 with a direction to the respondent to take appropriate decision on merits on the application ﬁled by the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the impugned memo has been passed on 28.12.1999. In the said memo, it is stated that the application dated 28.03.1991 sent by the petitioner was received by the respondent oﬃce on 30.03.1991, which is beyond the period of three months from the date of the judgment in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 1989 and hence, the application was rejected. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that on coming to know about the award dated 17.12.1990 of the civil Court, she applied for a certiﬁed copy of the order and decree on 11.03.1991, which was made ready on 16.03.1991 and received by her on 18.03.1991 and that on the same day she sent her application. The petitioner has not denied the fact that her application was received by the respondent on 30.03.1991. Even according to her, the certiﬁed copy was made ready on 16.03.1991, but she has not given any reason why she has not received it till 18.03.1991. Even by the time the petitioner applied for the certiﬁed copy, 84 days elapsed and by the time the copy was received by the respondent, there was a delay of almost two weeks. Though time taken for supply of a certiﬁed copy is required to be excluded under Section 28-A of the Act and even if ﬁve days time, as pleaded by the petitioner, is excluded for obtaining certiﬁed copy, there was still a delay of 7 days in approaching the respondent. Therefore, the ground of rejection contained in the impugned order cannot be said to suﬀer from any error warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.21629 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.08.2008 ES