IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7307 of 2007 Between: Gattu Md. Khasim & others. ..... Petitioners AND The Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer, Yemmiganuru, Kurnool District. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. Somakonda Reddy Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7307 of 2007 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing the disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondent to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) on par with the land owners in whose favour compensation was awarded in O.P.Nos.14 and 15 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Adoni. The petitioners are the owners of certain lands, which were acquired through notification dated 21.01.1989 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Along with the petitioners’ lands the lands belonging to several other persons were also acquired for providing house sites to Muslims and other weaker sections. Award was passed on 07.07.1989. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted under the award, some of the land owners got the disputes referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Adoni (hereinafter referred to as Civil Court). They were registered as O.P.Nos.14 and 15 of 1991 and disposed of on 17.11.1997. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act on 14.02.1998 before the respondent. As the appeal filed against the civil Court’s award was pending, the petitioners were informed by the respondent vide his proceedings in Rc.No.A.801/88, dated 26.07.2000 stating that he is awaiting the decision in the pending appeal and that after its disposal the payment of compensation will be decided as per law. Eventually, by judgment dated 14.02.2006, the appeal was disposed of by this Court. However, by separate endorsement dated 28.11.2006 the petitioners’ applications for enhancement of compensation were rejected on the sole ground that they have not submitted their applications within the stipulated time under Section 28-A of the Act. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent inter alia stated that the petitioners somehow managed with the lower staff to put the office seal dated 13.02.1998 over the already appended seal dated 25.05.1998. The respondent therefore pleaded that the applications are deemed to have been received on 25.05.1998 and not on 13.02.1998 and that the same are barred by limitation prescribed under Section 28-A of the Act. In my opinion, it is not permissible for the respondent to throw the blame on the petitioners by making a wild allegation that they have somehow managed with the lower staff. If the respondent believed so, he ought to have identified the members of the staff, who allegedly colluded with the petitioners. It is not even his pleaded case that he made any efforts in this regard. The applications being in his custody, he is responsible to ensure that the documents are safely preserved without being allowed to be manipulated. Therefore, I am unable to countenance the objection raised by the respondent. On mere suspicion, the valuable rights of the petitioners cannot be denied. Had the applications not been received within the prescribed time, there was no reason for the respondent to reject them at the first instance itself. Instead, he has issued endorsement dated 26.07.2000, as noted above, that their applications will be considered after disposal of the pending appeal. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to re-determine the compensation on the applications filed by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act by treating those applications as having been filed within the prescribed time and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.9312 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.06.2011 ES