IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3358 of 2004 Between: Smt. Pentakota Yasodamma … Petitioner AND District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao for Sri G. Venkateswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.2: Smt. V. Preeti Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3358 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting application dated 18.11.1999 filed by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao representing Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. An extent of Ac.13.98 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.202/1-B, 202/1-C, 202/2 and 203/2-A of Kanapaka Ayyannapeta Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the respondents. Along with the said land, lands belonging to others were also acquired. One Dr. Abdul Rehman, one of the land owners, not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, got the reference made under Section 18 of the Act to the competent civil Court, namely, learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The said reference was numbered as LAOP.No.13 of 1988 and the same was disposed of by judgment and decree dated 26.07.1999, whereby the market value of the land was enhanced to Rs.20/- per square yard from Rs.7/- per square yard. An appeal filed against the said judgment by the respondents was dismissed by this Court. While the cross- objections filed by the land owners were allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.20/- to Rs.30/- per square yard, the said judgment has become final. The petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act by filing an application for enhancement of compensation on par with the compensation fixed by this Court. The said application was filed on 18.11.1999 before respondent No.1, but however, the same was rejected by the impugned proceedings. A perusal of the said proceedings shows that the petitioner’s application for re- determination of the amount of compensation was rejected on two grounds, namely, (i) that there was a delay of 23 days in the petitioner making the application and (ii) the petitioner failed to file a certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 26.07.1999. In the counter affidavit filed by the Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer of respondent No.2, the said two grounds have been reiterated. At the hearing, Smt. V. Preethi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 further reiterated the said two grounds. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and I have not felt persuaded to accept the same. Under Section 28-A of the Act, a person, whose lands have been acquired, is entitled to seek re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court, notwithstanding that he had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. Under the proviso to the said provision, such an application shall be made within a period of three months and in computing the said period, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time required for obtaining the copy of the award shall be excluded. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that having come to know about the award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in LAOP.No.13 of 1988, the petitioner filed a copy application on 01.09.1999 and obtained a certified copy on 08.10.1999. He further pleaded that on 18.11.1999, he filed the application under Section 28-A of the Act before the District Collector, Vizianagaram District. These averments have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Hence, I am inclined to accept the same as correct. Since the time taken between 01.09.1999, the date on which application for certified copy was made and 08.10.1999, the date on which the judgment and decree was received, is required to be excluded under the abovementioned statutory provision, the petitioner’s application shall be treated as having been filed in time. Hence, I find no substance in the first objection for rejection of the petitioner’s application, namely, delay in filing the application. As regards the second objection, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in C. Narsinga Rao and others vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Mahaboobnagar[1] in support of his contention that an application for re-determination of the amount of compensation cannot be rejected only on the ground that the applicant failed to file a certified copy of the judgment and decree. In the said judgment this Court held that the Parliament, taking into consideration the ignorance of the persons, who are deprived of their valuable properties, had given a concession to file a claim for enhancement of compensation even at a later date and that such a laudable object of the Parliament cannot be scuttled by the executive on the ground that the applicant failed to annex a certified copy of the judgment along with the application. Following this judgment, I find no force in this ground of rejection as well. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner on merits treating the same as having been filed in time. Since the petitioner failed to file a certified copy of the judgment and decree along with the application, he is permitted to file the same within a period of four weeks from today. On such application being filed, the respondents shall consider the same for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.4427 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.06.2008 ES [1] 1993 ALT Supp. (1) 694