HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19353 of 2007 Date : 16.08.2011 Between : Vedurupaka Nagarjuna. …..Petitioner And District Collector, East Godavari District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19353 of 2007 ORDER : This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under : “to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent vide L.Dis.No.B/2634/98, dated 23- 01-1999 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and contrary to Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently, set aside the same and further direct the respondents herein to re- determine the claim of the petitioner herein for the lands acquired under Awards 1/87 and 2/87 in accordance with Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act in the light of the judgment in O.P.Nos.355, 357 and 445 of 1988, dated 7-10- 1996 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada”. The petitioner is owner of various extents of land in Sy.Nos.241/1, 241/3, 240/1, 241/5, 241/7, 241/10 and 273/2, situated at Suryaraopet village in Kakinada Rural Mandal of East Godavari District. The aforesaid land of petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the 3rd respondent-Company. The 2nd respondent-Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.35,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, some of the claimants under the same notification, sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the said petitions were numbered as O.P.Nos.355, 357 and 445 of 1988 on the file of Sub-Court, Kakinada. The reference Court, by judgment and decree, dated 25.09.1998, enhanced the compensation to Rs.55,100/- per acre. After the judgment of the reference Court in the aforesaid O.Ps., the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent-Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada by filing an application on 16.10.1998 for re- determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. On the application of petitioner, the impugned endorsement is issued on 23rd of January 1999, in L.Dis.No.B/2634/98, rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that it is not accompanied by the original copy of the judgment and decree of the reference Court. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that rejection of his application for re-determination of compensation, filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, is illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that the impugned order is passed contrary to the very provision under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Though the writ petition is of 2007, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The impleaded 3rd respondent-Company has filed counter affidavit. In the counter filed by the 3rd respondent, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a gap of eight years and hence, he is not entitled for any relief. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that no valid reason is assigned in the impugned endorsement, for rejection of his application for re-determination of compensation. It is submitted that there is no such requirement of enclosing the judgment/decree of the reference Court along with the application under Section 28-A of the Act. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in the case of Sahid and others Vs. District Collector, Kollam and others[1]. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for Land Acquisition Officer and also the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Company that in the instant case, no reason is given for the abnormal delay and laches on the part of petitioner. I have perused the provision under Section 28-A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads as under : “28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court :- (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. From a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that where an award is passed by the reference Court awarding compensation in excess of amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, the persons interested in the land covered by the same notification, are entitled to make an application within three months from the date of award, for re-determination of compensation, on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. As per the proviso, in computing the period of three months, the time took for obtaining certified copy of the award shall be excluded. No part of the aforesaid provision makes it compulsory to file certified copy of the award along with the application for re-determination of compensation. From a reading of the proviso, it is clear that one may file the copy of award in cases where applications were not filed within three months after passing of judgment by the Court, excluding the period spent for obtaining the copy of award. If an application is filed within three months from the date of award, it cannot be rejected only on the ground that it is not accompanied by the certified copy of award, as there is no such requirement under Section 28-A of the Act. The very provision is a beneficial provision for the persons, who did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for one reason or the other, to allow such persons claim compensation, which is fixed by the Court for the lands under the same notification. It is also to be noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer is also a party to the reference proceedings before the civil Court, as such, passing of award by the Court, enhancing the compensation, will be in his knowledge. In case if he requires such a copy of the award from the claimant, the Land Acquisition Officer can issue notice for producing a copy of the award, but the application for re-determination of compensation cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it was not accompanied by the certified copy of award. The judgment of Kerala High Court referred above, supports the case of the petitioner. In the aforesaid judgment, a learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court has held to the following effect : “The production of certified copy along with the application as provided under Order 41, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is not made compulsory either in the Act or in the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, merely because certified copy of the order was not produced along with the application such application cannot be rejected if the application is filed within three months from the date of the award. However, the applicants who are producing certified copy are entitled to get the time for getting certified copy excluded. There may be cases where parties may not be aware of the exact nature of the award of the Court and they have to apply and get a certified copy. In order to provide for such situation, proviso is included. The proviso of the Act make no direction that application under S.28-A should always be accompanied with the certified copy.” I fully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment. The land owners, whose lands are acquired for public purpose, cannot be deprived of the benefit under Section 28-A of the Act, but at the same time, it is to be seen that the impugned endorsement was made on 23rd of January 1999 in L.Dis.No.B/2634/98, whereas, this writ petition was filed on 10.09.2007. While it is true that there are some laches on the part of petitioner in approaching this Court, but as it is stated that for some time, disputes were pending before the Court with regard to apportionment of compensation, and as the lands acquired are agricultural lands, I am of the view that it is a fit case to allow the writ petition, by declaring that in case, if the claim of the petitioner is to be allowed under Section 28-A, he is not entitled for any interest or any other Statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, for the period from the date of impugned endorsement, till the date of filing the writ petition i.e. from 23.01.1999 to 10.09.2007. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement, dated 23rd January 1999, issued in L.Dis.No.B/2634/98, is hereby quashed, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to re-consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of compensation and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Writ petition is allowed with the directions indicated above. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th August 2011 ajr [1] AIR 1997 KERALA 216