IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21577 of 2008 Between: Manda Shivanna S/o. Bhomanna R/o. H.No. 1-171, Sirpur Village, Mandal Nandipet, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector, SRSP Pochampad. 2 The District Collector, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any order, or orders, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned memo No. H65581/2006, dated 23-5-2006, illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles Natural Justice and violation of article 14 of Constitution of India, and direct the respondents to treat the representation dated 28-11- 2005, is under section 28(A) of L.A. Act and Re-determine the amount of the compensation on the basis of the award of O.P. Nno. 190/1990 dated 15-11-1994 of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad for the houses bearing H.No. 1-138 and 1-136, 1-139, 1-71, 1-135, 1-134, 1-140, 1-73, of Sirpur Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad which was acquired for the purpose of SRSP Pochampad Project, in the interest of justice, equity and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRCH.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21577 of 2008 ORDER: The Government acquired a vast extent of land, in the year 1974, for the purpose of Sreeram Sagar Project. A notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 31.08.1974. The land of the petitioner is said to have been covered under it. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer on 23.09.1974. The petitioner states that he instructed his Advocate, who was appearing for a large number of other owners, to submit an application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act. A reference was made to the Court of Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, and it was taken up as O.P.No.190 of 1990. A decree was passed by that Court on 15.11.1994. The petitioner states that he was under the impression that his case is also subject matter of O.P.No.190 of 1990 and that the enhanced amount was deposited by the Government only in the year 2005. The petitioner made a representation, dated 28.11.2005, with a request to pay the enhanced compensation. The 2nd respondent issued memo, dated 23.05.2006, stating that the petitioner is not a party to O.P.No.190 of 1990 and no beneﬁt can be extended to him. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The representation made by the petitioner on 28.11.2005 is not the one under Section 28-A of the Act. A speciﬁc procedure is prescribed under that provision to enable the persons, who are not parties to reference, to claim the beneﬁt of enhanced compensation. Admittedly, the judgment in O.P.No.190 of 1990 was rendered on 15.11.1994. Any application under Section 28-A of the Act has to be made within 90 days from the date of judgment. In Union of India vs. Pradeep Kumari[1], the Supreme Court held that where the same award has given raise to several references, the owner of the land, who is not a party to any of the references, can ﬁle an application under Section 28-A of the Act, with reference even to the latest of the decrees passed by the reference Court. The petitioner places reliance upon a notice, dated 17.10.2007, issued by the 1st respondent, inviting applications from the interested parties to claim compensation. Mention is made to the judgment, dated 30.04.2007. It is not clear as to whether the judgment, dated 30.04.2007, is in relation to the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 31.08.1974, through which the land of the petitioner was acquired. At any rate, the petitioner has to be speciﬁc not only with reference to the judgment of a civil Court, but also must enclose a certiﬁed copy of the judgment, strictly in accordance with Section 28-A of the Act. Neither any application was made under Section 28-A of the Act nor any judgment constituting the basis thereof is ﬁled before this Court. Under these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that if there exist any decrees or judgments rendered by a Civil Court, with reference to the award, dated 23.09.1974, and the petitioner can make a claim under Section 28-A of the Act, it shall be open to him to do so. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 22.10.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSL} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21577 of 2008 Date: 22.10.2008 JSU [1] (1995) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 736