THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.19925 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) vide proceedings, dated 11.08.2000, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to set aside the said proceedings with a direction to the respondent to pay compensation on par with the claimants in O.P.No.416 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Wanaparthy. It is the case of the petitioner that his land to an extent of Acs.1.02 guntas situated in Survey No.9/4 of Bekkam Village, Weepanagandla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District was acquired by the respondent and an award was passed. He states that some of the landowners, whose lands were acquired under the same notification, sought reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation and the same was the subject matter of O.P.No.416 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Wanaparthy, which was disposed of on 04.11.1987. While so, the petitioner states that he along with other claimants, who were covered by the same award, made an application in terms of Section 28-A of the Act, on 04.02.1998 i.e., within three months from the date of the judgment and decree. However, having received the said application, as the respondent did not pass any orders, the petitioner, along with other claimants, claims to have approached this Court and filed W.P.No.5862 of 1995, which was disposed of on 14.10.1999 directing the respondent to consider the and dispose of the application and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. That pursuant to the said directions, the respondent has taken up the application, dated 04.02.1988, and rejected the same by order, dated 11.08.2000, on certain grounds, including that the application is time barred, though the same is well within time. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though he made a representation immediately after rejecting the application, dated 04.02.1988, bringing to the notice of the respondent that the application is well within time and there is no necessity to enclose a copy of the judgment and decree on which he has relied on in his application under Section 28-A of the Act, in vain. Hence, the present writ petition. The respondent filed detailed counter in the matter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter that the land to an extent of Acs.15.38 guntas covered by Survey No.954, including the subject land, was acquired through Award No.32 of 1979, dated 15.03.1979, for the purpose of Srisailam Hydro Electric Project and the landowners were paid compensation as per their entitlement. That the claimants in another acquisition proceedings, i.e., Award No.25 of 1977, dated 12.09.1977, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and the same was the subject matter of O.P.No.416 of 1985 and batch, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Wanaparthy. Apart from denying other allegations made by the petitioner, it is categorically stated in the counter that notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of the petitioner’s land is dated 24.03.1977, whereas the notification in respect of the subject lands in O.P.No.416 of 1985 under Section 4(1) of the Act, is dated 23.01.1975, and as such, the application said to have been filed by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act seeking re-determination cannot be considered, in view of the fact that both the notifications are different. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondent. Perused the record produced by the learned Government Pleader. At the outset, it is to be noted that the land of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of Srisailam Hydro Electric Project as per the provisions of the Act and compensation was paid as per his entitlement. Though the petitioner states that he filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act for extending the benefit on par with the claimants in O.P.No.416 of 1985, the fact remains that from a perusal of the counter as well as the record produced, it is clear that the 4(1) notification issued for acquiring the land of the petitioner, dated 24.03.1977, and the subject 4(1) notification of O.P.No.416 of 198, dated 23.01.1975, are entirely different and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of the judgment and decree in O.P.No.416 of 1985. That apart, it is stated that the landowners, whose lands were acquired along with the petitioner, filed O.P.No.771 of 1985, which was disposed of on 06.07.1987, but the petitioner filed the application under Section 28-A of the Act on 04.02.1988 and as such, there is an inordinate delay, which fact was not disputed the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:08.04.2010 VGB