IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUEST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19567 of 2002 Between: V.Jayaram Reddy and sixty three others. … Petitioners And The Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not passing orders on the petitioners’ applications dated 20-8-1991 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in terms of Order, dated 26- 4-1991 passed in LAOP No.306 of 1987 on the ﬁle of the Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, Cuddapah District, as illegal and arbitrary. The lands of the petitioners were acquired under notiﬁcation dated 12-1-1978 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and Award No.1 of 1981, dated 23-3-1981, was passed. Some of the third parties, whose lands were also acquired under the same notiﬁcation, got the dispute referred under Section 18 of the Act and the same was registered as LAOP No.306 of 1987 on the ﬁle of the Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, which was disposed of on 26-4-1991. The petitioners’ case is that they made a copy application on 26-6-1991 for obtaining certiﬁed copy of the decree; and that the decree was made ready on 25-7-1991. Their further case is that after obtaining the decree copy, they made applications on 20-8-1991 under Section 28-A of the Act and that a reminder was also sent on 23- 1-1998. In the counter-aﬃdavit, respondent No.2 has not denied the above-mentioned averments, except saying that the Writ Petition ﬁled after a lapse of 11 years is liable to be dismissed. The respondents have not oﬀered any justiﬁcation for not taking any action on the applications ﬁled by the petitioners; more so, when they have not denied receipt of such applications. Therefore, a statutory obligation is cast on the respondents to dispose of the applications ﬁled by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act. Having thus not discharged their statutory obligation, it is not permissible for them to raise an objection to the delay occurred in the petitioners’ approaching this Court. If the facts pleaded by the petitioners in para 7 of the aﬃdavit, which are referred to above, are correct, they are entitled for reference of their claim, because under Section 28-A the time taken for obtaining a certiﬁed copy of the civil Court decree has to be excluded in computing the period of 90 days. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioners, with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the applications of the petitioners. If it is found that after excluding the time taken for obtaining certiﬁed copy of the decree, the petitioners’ applications ﬁled on 20-8-1991 are within the period of 90 days from the decree of the civil Court in LAOP No.306 of 1987, he shall dispose of the said applications for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. If respondent No.2 ﬁnds that the applications were ﬁled beyond the period of 90 days, even after excluding the time taken for obtaining certiﬁed copy, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 shall complete this exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ----------------------- ----------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07-08-2008 MNR