THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.6022 of 2007 Date:20th July, 2010 Between: Smt.Basheera Bee …Petitioner and 1. Government of A.P. rep. by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad & Ors. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.6022 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Smt.Basheera Bee with a prayer to issue a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the application filed by her under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) to re-determine the compensation to the acquired land of her as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is the owner of in Survey No.124/B1 admeasuring Ac.3.53 cents, situated at Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 25.03.1989 came to be issued proposing the acquisition of land owned by the petitioner along with other lands for the purpose of providing house sites to minorities and other weaker sections. An award came to be passed on 07.07.1989 under Section 11 of the Act fixing the compensation at Rs.30,600/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.32,000/- per acre for I.D. lands. The petitioner received the compensation. However, she did not file any application before the Land Acquisition Officer seeking referene to civil Court for re-determination of compensation. Some of the land owners received compensation under protest and thereupon, a reference came to be made to the civil Court with regard to re-determination of the compensation. The learned Subordinate Judge, Adoni, entertained the reference as O.P.Nos.14 and 15 of 1991. Both the O.Ps. came to be disposed of on 17.11.1997 enhancing the compensation. The claimants therein dis-satisfied with the quantum of amount allowed to them by the Civil Court, filed appeals being A.S.Nos.106 of 1999 and 778 of 1998. The said appeals came to be disposed of by a common judgment dated 14.06.2006 enhancing the compensation from Rs.54,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner, on coming to know about the disposal of the appeals, submitted an application dated 01.09.2006 for re-determination of compensation payable to her under Section 28A of the Act. There being no action on her application filed under Section 28A of the Act, she invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the relief stated supra. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 26.03.2007. 4. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. Acquisition of land owned by the petitioner is not in dispute. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner received the compensation without protest and she did not make any application within three months of the award of the reference Court and therefore, she is not entitled for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the civil Court. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 6. The issue that calls for adjudication in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for re-determination of the amount of compensation consequent on the award passed by the civil Court in O.P.Nos.14 and 15 of 1991 and also the common judgment of this Court in A.S.Nos.106 of 1999 and 778 of 1998. 7. Section 28A of the Act is the provision under which the owner of the land can avail the benefit of enhancement of compensation based on the award passed by the civil Court. For better appreciation, I may refer Section 28A of the Act, which reads as hereunder: “28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of theCourt.—(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18.)” 8. The ‘Court’ has been defined in Section 3(d) of the Act, which reads as hereunder: “the expression “Court” means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform functions of the Court under this Act.” 9. The Supreme Court in D.Venkamma & Ors. v. Spl. Tahsildar (LA) Unit-IV, Jangareddigudem[1] held that Section 28A of the Act speaks of re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the ‘award of the court’. The expression ‘Court’ has been defined under Section 3(d) to mean ‘a principal judicial officer’ appointed by the Government to perform the functions of the Court. In other words, the court of original jurisdiction which receives an order of reference pursuant to an application made under Section 18 is the civil court of original jurisdiction. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the High Court enhancing the compensation under Section 23(1) does not provide a right or cause of action to make a written application under Section 28A seeking re-determination of the compensation. 10. Indisputably, the civil Court passed the award on 17.11.1997. Under Section 28A of the Act, the petitioner has to make an application, within three months, claiming the benefit of the order of the civil Court. The petitioner did not choose to file the application within three months of the order passed by the civil Court. Her application is dated 01.09.2006 i.e. after 9 years of the date of passing of the award by the civil Court. The petition filed by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determination of compensation is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 28A of the Act and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:20th July, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.6022 of 2007 Date:20th July, 2010 [1] (1996) 1 S.C.C. 85