THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.16240 of 2002 DATED: 03.03.2010 Between: Diddi Nooka Raju and others. .. Petitioners. And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, And another. .. Respondents. ORDER: According to the petitioners, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), acquiring their lands in different survey numbers situated at Prathipadu village and Mandal, East Godavari District, for the purpose of laying bypass road to the National Highway, was published on 27.06.1985 along with the lands of other persons, and possession was taken on 09.08.1985. After complying with the other formalities, the LAO passed the award in Award No.10/1986, dated 31.03.1986, determining the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre. However, they received the compensation under protest and sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioners contend that some of the land owners covered by the same notification got the issue relating to quantum of compensation referred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, under Section 18 of the Act and registered as O.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 1991. The said O.Ps., were disposed of by common judgment dated 12.09.2000, enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per acre, apart from awarding other benefits. Inasmuch as their lands and the lands of the claimants in O.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 1991 were situated in the same village and notified under the same notification, they submitted applications on 19.04.2001 and 31.10.2001 to the respondents under Section 28-A of the Act to re-determine the compensation. Complaining that the respondents did not take any action in pursuance of their representations, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners. Though the writ petition was admitted as long back as on 05.09.2002, no counter affidavit has been filed. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents contended that admittedly the petitioners failed to apply for re-determination within the time prescribed under Section 28-A of the Act from the date of award of the reference Court and, therefore, their applications are hopelessly barred by limitation. In support of her contention, she relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in D.Venkamma and others v. Special Tehsildar (LA) Unit-IV, Janagareddigudem, W.G. District, Elugu, A.P. and Smt. Bhagti (Deceased) through her L.Rs., Jagdish Ram Sharma vs. State of Haryana. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 28-A of the Act is a beneficial provision, which is required to be construed liberally. The legal question involved in this writ petition is whether the applications filed by the petitioners belatedly, under Section 28-A of the Act, can be entertained or not. Admittedly, the reference Court passed its award and decree in the year 1986, and that the petitioners, after coming to know about the enhancement of compensation in the common judgment dated 12.09.2000 filed in O.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 1991 before the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, pertaining to some of the land owners whose lands are covered by the same notification and referred to the Civil Court, the petitioners filed their representations on 19.04.2001 and also on 31.10.2001 under Section 28-A of the Act, seeking enhancement of the compensation and other benefits on par with the claimants in O.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 1991. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners filed their representations much belatedly i.e., after more than 15 years of passing of the award dated 31.03.1986, and more than seven months of passing of the common judgment dated 12.09.2000 in O.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 1991. As per Section 28-A of the Act, the limitation for filing an application seeking re-determination of compensation, on the basis of the Court award, is within a period of three months from the date of the award of the reference Court. Thus, the conclusion is inevitable that the petitioners are not entitled to seek re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, as they did not file their applications within a period of three months from the date of the award of the reference Court. Since the petitioners did not file the applications for re-determination of the compensation within a period of three months, stipulated therefor, and filed them long after the award of the reference Court, I am of the considered opinion that the applications of the petitioners are clearly barred by limitation. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the applications of the petitioners made for re- determination of compensation. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 03.03.2010 v v