THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.6015 of 2007 Date:20th July, 2010 Between: 1. K.Bajarappa & Ors. …Petitioners and 1. Government of A.P. rep. by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad & Ors. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.6015 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 10 in number, with a prayer to issue a Mandamus declaring the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District-4th respondent, in issuing endorsement bearing No.Re.A.801/86, dated 28.11.2006, rejecting the application filed by them under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) to re-determine the compensation to the acquired land of them as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners are the owners of the different extents of land stated in para.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 25.03.1989 came to be issued proposing the acquisition of land owned by the petitioners along with other lands for the purpose of providing house sites to minorities and other weaker sections. An award came to be passed on 07.07.1989 under Section 11 of the Act fixing the compensation at Rs.30,600/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.32,000/- per acre for I.D. lands apart from various other benefits. Some of the land owners protested with regard to compensation and thereupon a reference came to be made to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The civil Court i.e., the Subordinate Judge, Adoni, entertained the reference as O.P.Nos.14 and 15 of 1991. By judgment dated 17.11.1997 the civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.54,000/- per acre. The claimants therein, dis-satisfied with the quantum of amount allowed to them by the Civil Court, filed appeals being A.S.Nos.106 of 1999 and 778 of 1998. The said appeals came to be disposed of by a common judgment dated 14.06.2006 enhancing the compensation from Rs.54,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioners 1 to 9 herein filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act on 06.02.1998 claiming re-determination of compensation awarded to them in accordance with the judgment passed in O.P.Nos.14 and 15 of 1991. Thereafter, all the petitioners issued legal notices dated 24.05.2006 and 09.11.2006 claiming the benefits under section 28-A of the Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District-4th respondent issued the endorsement dated 28.11.2006 stating that the petitioners have not submitted the applications within the stipulated time under Section 28-A of the Act. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioners. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 26.03.2007. 4. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. The respondents did not dispute of the acquisition of the land owned by the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners 1 to 9 submitted representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni-3rd respondent on 06.02.1998. For better appreciation, I may refer para.5 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “5. In reply to the averments made in Para.5 of the Petitioners’ affidavit it is submitted that the petitioners have received the Land Compensation as awarded in Award No.1/89 without protest and they did not file any application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also true that some of the Awardees have submitted application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to refer their cases to the Civil Court for enhancement of Land Compensation. The petitioners have not submitted applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. As seen from the record of this office, the petitioners have filed petitions under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of the market value on the basis of the judgment in O.P.Nos.14, 15 and 17 of 1991 dated 17.11.1995. The said petitions are dated 6/2/1998 and received in Revenue Divisional Officer’s Office, on 10/2/1998 as seen from the date seal appearing on the Petitions. As seen from this office record, it is also a fact that an Endorsement was issued to the petitioners except to the petitioner No.10 stating that the action will be taken after disposal of the Appeals filed by this office. Regarding the petitioner No.10, he has not submitted any application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the petitioner No.10 has no claim.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 6. The issue that calls for adjudication in this Writ Petition is:- whether the petitioners are entitled for re-determination of the amount of compensation consequent on the award passed by the civil Court in O.P.Nos.14 and 15 of 1991 and also the common judgment of this Court in A.S.Nos.106 of 1999 and 778 of 1998. 7. Section 28A of the Act is the provision under which the owner of the land can avail the benefit of enhancement of compensation based on the award passed by the reference Court. For better appreciation, I may refer Section 28A of the Act, which reads as hereunder: “28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of theCourt.—(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18.)” 8. The ‘Court’ has been defined in Section 3(d) of the Act, which reads as hereunder: “the expression “Court” means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform functions of the Court under this Act.” 9. I n D.Venkamma & Ors. v. Spl. Tahsildar (LA) Unit-IV, Jangareddigudem[1] the Supreme Court held that Section 28A of the Act speaks of re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the ‘award of the court’. The expression ‘Court’ has been defined under Section 3(d) to mean ‘a principal judicial officer’ appointed by the Government to perform the functions of the Court. In other words, the court of original jurisdiction which receives an order of reference pursuant to an application made under Section 18 is the civil court of original jurisdiction. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the High Court enhancing the compensation under Section 23(1) does not provide a right or cause of action to make a written application under Section 28A seeking re-determination of the compensation on the basis of the compensation awarded by the court under reference under Section 18 of the Act. 10. I n Union of India v. MunshiRam (dead) by LRs.[2], the Supreme Court held that the compensation payable to claimants who have applied under Section 28-A of the Act is the amount awarded by Reference Court and as modified in appeal by higher Courts. 11. Indisputably, the petitioners 1 to 9 filed the application within three months of the award passed by the civil Court. Whereas, 10th petitioner did not choose to make an application within the period stipulated for re-determination of the amount of the compensation consequent on the judgment passed by the civil Court in O.P.Nos.14 and 15 of 1991. Therefore, the 10th petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part directing the respondents to re-determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners 1 to 9 keeping in view the common order passed by the civil Court in OP Nos.14 and 15 of 1991 and also the common judgment of this Court in A.S.Nos.1401 of 1998 and 778 of 1998. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:20th July, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.6015 of 2007 Date:20th July, 2010 [1] (1996) 1 S.C.C. 85 [2] 2006 (3) ALT 71 (SC)