IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 22310 of 1994 Between: Md.Abdul Haq S/o.Md.Khasim R/o.Nadipalli Nizamabad Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer Nizamabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of certiorari and quash the order passed by the respondents through memo No.A5/3621/92, dt.9/7/1992 and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent : G.P. for Revenue. The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioner herein, who claims to be the owner of the land in S.No. 420 admeasuring Ac 1.06 guntas along with big well situated at Nadipalli District, Nizamabad District, filed this Writ Petition, inter alia seeking to assail the impugned Memo No. A5/3621/92 dated 9.7.1992 rejecting the application filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in respect of the lands similarly acquired under the same notification, there has been a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which has been taken up as OP No. 134/87 and the same was disposed of by the Reference Court on 2.4.1992. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application on 30.6.1992 along with a copy of the judgment. However, the said application has been rejected merely on the ground that the said authority has not received the copy of the judgment. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and also on a perusal of the material, it is seen that except the ground that the said authority did not receive the copy of the judgment, no other objection has been raised. The petitioner had already filed the certified copy of the judgment. Once the connected reference has already been disposed of by enhancing the compensation, one would be entitled to the similar such compensation especially where the lands have been acquired. In the circumstances, the Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to dispose of the application on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No costs. Ka 09.07.2004. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad 2. 2CCs to G.P. for Revenue , High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 3. 2CD copies.