THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1295 of 2011 ORDER: The lands of the petitioners in various survey numbers of Basinepalli Village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District were acquired for laying a broad gage railway line between Gooty and Pendekal. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 14.05.1999 and possession of the lands was taken on 13.05.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No.2 herein, passed an award on 20.10.1999. Owners of some of the lands that were acquired under the same notification sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Such a reference was made through letter, dated 08.11.2000, and the matter was taken up by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty. Through an order, dated 19.02.2007, the trial Court enhanced the compensation. To avail the benefit under Section 28-A of the Act, the petitioners submitted an application on 27.07.2007 before respondent No.2. Through an endorsement, dated 28.12.2010, respondent No.2 rejected the case of the petitioners on the ground that it was presented after expiry of the stipulated time. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It is not in dispute that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for the purpose of laying a railway line. By themselves, the petitioners did not seek any reference. However, owners of some of the lands sought for reference and it was taken up as O.P.No.2 of 2001. The trial Court enhanced the compensation through its decree, dated 19.02.2007. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act on 27.07.2007 was rejected through the impugned endorsement only on the ground that it was presented after expiry of the period of limitation. Section 28-A of the Act prescribes the limitation of 90 days for presentation of the claim under it. The time that is taken up for obtaining the certified copy is to be excluded in computing the period. The record discloses that the petitioner submitted an application for the certified copy on 21.02.2007 and it was furnished on 02.05.2007. The claim was ultimately made on 27.07.2007. If the time taken by the petitioners in obtaining the certified copy is excluded, it emerges that the claim petition was made 88 days after the date of decree of the trial Court. In other words, it was made two days before the limitation expires. This was not taken into account by respondent No.2. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to process the claim made by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act by treating that it was presented within the period of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:07.02.2011 kdl