IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24850 of 2006 Between: 1 Kariyavula Subbaiah S/o.Chinavenkata Subbaiah R/o.Chittepalli village and Post, Podalakur Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Kariyavula Ramanamma W/o.Subbaiah R/o.Chittepalli village and Post, Podalakur Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Teluguganga Project, Rapur at Nellore, Nellore District. .....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 or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not re-determining the compensation under Section 28-(A) of the Land Acquisition Act as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and opposed to proviso Article 31-A and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to re- determine the compensation on the applications dt. 28.11.2001 filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the submerged property of the petitioners on par with the claimants in LAOP No.55/93 dt. 28.09.2001 on the file of the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gudur as the petitioners properties and the properties in the said OP are covered by the same Section 4(1) notification dt. 05.12.1991 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24850 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not re-determining the compensation as required under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary and opposed to the proviso of Article 31-A and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent to consider the application dated 28.11.2001 filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act. It appears that the lands owned by the petitioners were submerged for construction of Kondaleru reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 5.12.1991 and after passing the award, the Land Acquisition Officer paid compensation to the petitioners, which was received by them under protest. However, some of the claimants, whose lands were also acquired as per the said notification, approached the competent civil Court vide LAOP No.55 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. The learned Judge, after considering the evidence adduced, enhanced the compensation. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that since their lands were also acquired under the very same notification, they are entitled to the compensation on par with those claimants in LAOP No.55 of 1993. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act, dated 28.11.2001 before the respondent seeking to extend the benefits of the judgment and decree, dated 28.09.2001 passed in LAOP No.55 of 1993. According to the petitioners, the said application is neither disposed of nor the compensation is re-determined as required under Section 28-A of the Act. No counter-affidavit is filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the application purported to have been filed by the petitioners on 28.11.2001 re-determining the compensation for their lands acquired under the Act as per the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 in LAOP No.55 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and intimate the same to the petitioners. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date:18.02.2009 pnb