THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.C. No.726 of 2009 IN W. P.No.8251 of 2007 AND C.C. No.727 of 2009 IN W. P.No.8401 of 2007 COMMOM ORDER: Since the point involved in these contempt cases is one and the same, these two contempt cases are being disposed of by this common order. These two Contempt Cases are filed by the petitioners praying this Court to punish the respondents herein for willfully disobeying the orders of this Court passed in W.P No.8251 of 2007 and W.P.No.8401 of 2007 dated 12.03.2008. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the absolute owners of the lands sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of Somasila project and accordingly notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) were published on 09.03.1994 and 12.03.1994 respectively. After following due process of law, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed certain amount towards compensation. Since the said amount of compensation is inadequate, some of the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and accordingly the matter was referred to Civil Court and it was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.888 of 1999 on the file of the District Judge, Kadapa and that the learned District Judge, after considering the entire material available on record, enhanced the amount of compensation by his order dated 25.02.2002. Thereafter, the petitioners made applications to the Land Acquisition Officer on 27.05.2002 seeking re-determination of the amount of compensation as provided for under Section 28-A of the Act and as no orders were passed, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P.No.8251 of 2007 and W.P.No.8401 of 2007 respectively. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, passed the following order in both the writ petitions: “Admittedly, the compensation was enhanced by the District Judge in L.A.O.P.No.888 of 1999 by the judgment dated 25.02.2002 and when once the compensation is enhanced, the claimants, who have not sought for reference as provided under Section 18 of the Act, can make an application for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Civil Court and for this purpose, Section 28-A of the Act was inserted by Act 68 of 1984. The intention of the Legislature is to see that the claimants, who have not sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act, are entitled to and be paid the same compensation as determined by the Civil Court. In the instant case, the Civil Court on a reference enhanced the compensation by its award dated 25.02.2002 and the petitioners sought for re- determination within the time prescribed under Section 28-A of the Act. As per Section 28-A of the Act, the application for re-determination shall be made within a period of three months thereof and the time for obtaining the certified copy shall be excluded. The date of order of the Civil Court in L.A.O.P.No.888 of 1999 is dated 25.02.2002, copy application was made on 13.03.2002, stamps were called for on 13.05.2002 and the same were deposited on 14.05.2002 and the copy was made ready on 16.05.2002. From the above, it is clear that the said application dated 27.05.2002 seeking re-determination is filed within the time prescribed under Section 28-A of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners in the writ petitions are also entitled to the compensation as enhanced by the Civil Court. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader that the said enhancement of compensation made by the Civil Court was reduced vide judgment of this Court in A.S.No.875 of 2003 and batch dated 18th April, 2006. In view of the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.875 of 2003 and batch dated 18th April, 2006, the petitioners are also entitled for re-determination of compensation. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to re-determine the market value and pay the enhanced compensation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.” Complaining that the aforesaid order dated 12.03.2008 passed in both these writ petitions is not complied with; the petitioners filed these two contempt cases. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in C.C.No.726 of 2009, wherein it is stated that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Telugu Ganga Project Unit-I, Kadapa, has issued notices to the petitioners in his Ref.C/234/08 dated 01.12.2008 calling them to appear for enquiry on 08.12.2008 and conducted enquiry. During the examination of references under Section 28-A, it was noticed that the Counsel for the petitioners had filed the applications of the petitioners under Section 28-A through registered post No.137 dated 18.06.2002. However, the individual applications contain date, stamps dated 10.06.2002. Further, when compared the signatures of the applicants in the 28-A applications with that of the signatures obtained during the enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer, it was noticed that many signatures of the petitioners in both the documents were varied and not tallying. A question also arose as to how the applications dispatched on 18.06.2002 through registered post which were bearing the initials of the receiving officer dated 10.06.2002 itself. Evidently, the applications were forged and fabricated at a later date with an afterthought and there is prima facie fraud committed in this case. During enquiry it is also noticed that the writ petitioners Nos.12, 38 and 72 have filed applications under Section 28-A of the LA Act, though they have received the compensation under Section 18 of the LA Act as seen from the entry in Sl.No.285, 368 and 299 of the P.V.approval statement in LAOP No.888 of 1999. Further, it came to light that, the writ petitioners Sl.Nos.1 to 11, 14 to 17, 20 to 26, 28, 30 to 32, 34 to 37, 42, 43, 46 to 54, 56, 57, 59 to 72 and 74 to 78 have already filed W.P.No.1136 of 2007 before this Court for the same relief and got directions on 29.01.2007 to the respondents to consider the applications filed by the writ petitioners under Section 28-A. The 2nd respondent- Special Deputy Collector, GNSS, Kadapa, has enquired the matter. Neither writ petitioners nor their Counsel have produced relevant documents. During the enquiry, the Counsel for the applicant Mr.Jaya Chandra Raju has filed a letter stating that he has received the certified copy of the reference Court order in LAOP N.888 of 1999 dated 25.02.2002 and that he submitted the 28-A applications in time. During enquiry another advocate by name R.Thippa Reddy has appeared and made a complaint stating that these writ petitioners have never filed the applications under Section 28-A before the Special Deputy Collector and hence their claims are not maintainable and that he himself filed the applications of the writ petitioners under Section 28-A through registered post. The Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa, came to the conclusion that the claims are spurious and accordingly rejected the claim of the writ petitioners in W.P.No.1136 of 2007 vide his proceedings dated 07.08.2007. A detailed reply-affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner No.39 denying the allegations made in the counter-affidavit. It is stated that on receipt of a notice dated 1.12.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners appeared before him on 08.12.2008 and participated in the award enquiry under Section 28-A of the Act and the subordinates of the second respondent obtained their signatures on the statements prepared by them. It is further stated that the petitioners are illiterate persons and due to efflux of time, there might be some variance in their signatures and as such no importance can be attached to the same as long as there are no rival claims. It is further stated that the petitioners never filed W.P.No.1136 of 2007 and as such they are in no way concerned with the orders, if any, passed by the Special Deputy Collector in respect of the claims of the petitioners in W.P.No.1136 of 2007. It is further stated that the petitioners herein sent the applications under Section 28-A of the Act by registered post along with a covering letter of their advocate on 08.06.2002 and the same were received by the Special Deputy Collector on 10.06.2002 and therefore the receiving officer rightly affixed the signature with date as 10.06.2002 on the applications. Heard both sides. The dates mentioned in the counter-affidavit, in respect of the applications under Section 28-A of the Act, appear to be not correct. When the said applications under Section 28-A of the Act were sent through registered post No.137 dated 18.06.2002, it is not known as to how they were received by the respondent authorities on 10.06.2002. From that, it shall be inferred that the said applications were sent on 08.06.2002 as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Further the learned Counsel for the petitioners produced proof establishing the fact that the said applications seeking re-determination of the amount of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act were sent only on 08.06.2002. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not made applications under Section 28-A of the Act within the time provided for under Section 28-A of the Act. So far as the signatures of the petitioners in 28-A applications are concerned, I am totally in agreement with the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, most of the petitioners are illiterate persons and hence there might be some variance in their signatures. From a perusal of the record produced by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners had submitted the applications under Section 28-A of the Act within time prescribed under Section 28-A of the Act. The very purpose of adding Section 28-A is to enable such of the owners of the property, who could not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act, to reap the benefits of the enhancement made at the instance of the persons whose lands were acquired under the same notification. After perusing the record, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the petitioners have made applications under Section 28-A of the Act within the time prescribed and hence they are entitled for enhanced compensation. When once an application seeking enhancement under Section 18 of the Act is made, in my considered view, the petitioners cannot ask for re-determination of the compensation again under Section 28-A of the Act. I find force in the said contention put forth by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In those circumstances, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to find out the persons who made applications under Section 18 of the Act and also under Section 28-A of the Act and if the petitioners come within the said category the amount of compensation may not be enhanced. Since the acquisition of the lands is of the year 1994 and it is almost more than 16 years, the respondents are hereby directed to re-determine the compensation as provided for under Section 28-A of the Act on par with the persons whose compensation has been enhanced and pay the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the Contempt Cases are accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 11-02-2011 Gsn.