HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21675 of 1999 Dated:30.01.2008 Between: Polisetty Apparao. …Petitioner and Special Deputy Collector, Visakhaptnam. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21675 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner is statedly joint owner of land admeasuring 8150 square feet (905 square yards) comprised in Town Survey No.119/2 situated at Waltair in Visakhapatnam Municipal limits and the lands of others were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), for road widening under award No.19 of 1987, dated 14.07.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.61/- per square yard, as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, it appears, three owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The same, being O.P.No.51 of 1992, was enquired into by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.61/- per square yard to Rs.200/- per square yard. The said award, dated 13.07.1993, became final. The petitioner approached the respondent and filed an application on 09.04.1999, under Section 28-A of the Act, for re-determination of the compensation. Alleging that the same has been not acted upon and enquired into, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus to the respondent directing him to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. In spite of service of notice, no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, however, submits that when the civil Court decided the matter on 13.07.1993, the petitioner made an application for re- determination, after a lapse of six years, on 09.04.1999, and therefore, the same is barred by time. A perusal of Section 28-A of the Act would show that a owner of acquired land has to make an application to the District Collector within three months from the date of award of the Court and request for re-determination. However, the time taken for obtaining copy of the order of the civil Court shall be excluded, while reckoning three months. In this case, even if sometime is allowed to the petitioner to obtain copy, it cannot certainly be taken six years. Therefore, the application made by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act on 09.04.1999, is not in accordance with Section 28-A(1) of the Act and therefore, this Court does not find any arbitrariness in the inaction of the respondent. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.01.2008 GJ