IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.25179 of 2007 Between: The Madhavaram Weavers Production & Sales Society Ltd., Kadapa district and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The Special Collector (L.A.), Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi, Sankarapuram, Kadapa district and another .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: 1. This Court issued rule nisi on 01-02-2008. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. Reply affidavit also had been filed. 3. Sri Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the stand taken in the counter affidavit and also the further clarification given in the reply affidavit and also further produced the petition made before the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), T.G.P./Somasila Project, Unit No.IV, Rajampet and further placed before this court the endorsement made by the Special Deputy Collector, S.S.P. Unit-IV, Rajampet dated 30- 11-1998 to the effect that he received 54 applications under 28(a). The Counsel would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper to allow the writ petition with appropriate directions. 4. Per contra, the learned AGP for Land Acquisition had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and also specifically pointed out to this spurious nature of the documents relied on which would raise a serious doubt about the bonafides and also pointed out relating to the retirement of Sri Swamy Das, Special Deputy Collector and would maintain that in the light of these suspicious features since it is highly doubtful whether such applications in fact had been made for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience). 5. Heard the Counsel. Perused the material placed before this court. 6. The writ petitioners filed the present writ petition for a writ of Mandamus, holding that the action of the respondents in not re- determining the compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further direct the respondents to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further direct the respondents to re-determine the compensation in respect of the structures of the petitioners in Madhavaram village, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa district, on part with that of the lands coved by O.P.No.44/93 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, as the structures of the petitioners and the claimants in the said O.P. were covered by the same Section 4(1) of the notification dated 23-03-1981 and pass such other suitable orders. 7. It is averred in para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the village Madhavaram, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District is one of the villages that got submerged under Somasila Project. The Government of Andhra Pradesh published 4(1) Notification for acquiring the structures in A.P. Gazette on 23- 03-1981. The Draft Declaration was published in A.P. Gazette on 18-04-1981. The Special Deputy Collector, Unit IV, Somasila Project passed Award No.18/86, dated 18-09-1986 and he did not award the market value for the structures under acquisition. So some of the claimants sought the reference under Section 18 of the Act. The respondents referred the matter to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference was numbered originally as O.P.No.44/93 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District by his order dated 24-08-1998 in LAOP No.2317/88 and batch cases enhanced the compensation to some extent in the said O.P. 8. It is also averred in para 3 that the structures of the claimants in O.P.No.44/93 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District and the structures belonging to the petitioners were covered by the very same notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Act, dated 23-03-1981. The order in O.P.No.44/93 was pronounced on 24-08-1998. After obtaining the certified copies, Advocate Sri K. Subba Rami Reddy, Advocate submitted applications on 30-11-1998. The applications under Section 28-A of the Act filed requesting the respondents to re- determine the compensation for their structures on the basis of the Award, dated 24-08-1998 passed by the court, as they are also aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the respondent. The respondent received the applications on 30-11- 1998 and gave acknowledgment. Though the applications under Section 28-A of the Act were filed in time, the respondents have not re-determined the compensation inspite of their representations. As against the orders made in O.P.No.44/93 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, the Government filed A.S.No.28/2004 before this Court and this Court referred the same to Lok Adalath. The matter was settled before Lok Adalath, Kadapa on 19-10-2006. 9. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are not re-determining the compensation on par with the amount of compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge in O.P.No.44/93. Specific stand had been taken that the respondents are under a statutory obligation to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act and further it had been stated that the petitioners cannot be deprived of their property without paying the appropriate market value by way of compensation in the light of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 10. As already aforesaid, the petition under Section 28-A filed by Sri K. Subbi Ram Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa had been placed before this court. The petitioners are the Madhavaram Weavers Production and Sales Society Limited and the Madhavaram Power Loom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Limited. The endorsement made by the Special Deputy Collector, SSP, Unit IV, Rajampet dated 30-11-1998 also had been placed before this court where the list of the applicants who applied for re- determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act had been specified and these petitioners are shown at Sl.Nos.49 and 50 in the said list of applicants submitted by Sri K. Subbi Ram Reddy wherein the due endorsement by the Special Deputy Collector, SSP, Unit IV, Rajampet was made on 30-11-1998. 11. It is however, pertinent to note that a counter affidavit had been filed in detail by the respondents, sworn to by the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Somasila Project, Unit IV, Rajampet, Kadapa, who had specifically denied several of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 12. It is averred in para 3 of the counter affidavit that it is true that the village Madhavaram of Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, has been acquired vide Award No.18/86 dated 18-09-1986. It is also true that the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, by an Order dated 24-08-1998 in L.A.O.P.No.2317/88 and batch, in which O.P.No.44 of 1993 is also one among them, had enhanced the compensation payable to the structures. It is also stated that from the letter addressed to the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), SSP, Unit IV, Rajampet by Sri Subbarami Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa, it is mentioned that he has sent applications of the petitioners under Section 28 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act relating to the village Boyanbapalli of Vontimitta (M) and he has requested for re-determination of compensation on par with Civil Court Award in LAOP 277/88. It is further stated that this LAOP related to Award No.37/86 pertaining to structures of Boyanapalli (V) and not related to Award No.18/86 of Madhavaram (V). LAOP 277/88 is not a batch case in LAOP 2317/88. It is also stated that in the subject of the letter there is a clear mention that the L.A. Applications are filed under Section 28 (A) of the Act for re- determination of compensation related to Boyanapalli (V) Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 basing on Civil Court Award in LAOP 277/88 and batch. The mentioning of LAOP No.2317/88 batch after Sy.No.47 application and adding the names of 48 to 54 raises doubts and obtaining unofficial acknowledgment from Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), SSP, Unit IV, Rajampet on 30-11-1998 (The retirement of Sri Swamydas, Special Deputy Collector) further indicates the spurious nature of the claim of the writ petitioners. It is also averred that the LAOP 277/88 relates to enhancement of valuation of the structures ordered by the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajampet, it is not known how the applications pertaining to lands i.e., S.Nos.51 to 54 are included in the letter. 13. Further it is averred that it is a fact that the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Unit IV, preferred appeal in A.S.No.28/2004 against the orders passed in O.P.No.43 and batch on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet and this Court pleased to settle the case through Lok Adalat at Kadapa on 19-10-2006. 14. It is also stated that the petitioners’ structures are not covered by the notifications pertaining to LAOP 277/88. It is also true that as verified from the Office records, no applications under Section 28-A pertaining to the petitioners are available. Now there are no entries in the 28(A) Registers relating to Unit-IV, Somasila Project. As such the acknowledgment produced by the petitioners arises a doubt as to the genuinity of the acknowledgment. 15. A reply affidavit had been filed wherein it is stated that Boyanapalli is a Hamlet of Madhavaram village. Sri K. Subba Rami Reddy, Counsel for the petitioners submitted 54 applications under Section 28-A of the Act relating to the villages of Boyanapalli and Madhavaram to the Special Deputy Collector (LAO Unit IV), Rajampet, on 30-11-1998. The Special Deputy Collector put his signature on every application filed under Section 28-A of the Act and gave acknowledgment to their Counsel. Hence, the stand taken in the counter affidavit that Boyanapalli and Madhavaram are different villages cannot be a sustainable stand especially in the light of the fact that Boyanapalli is a Hamlet of Madhavaram village. The other details also had been furnished. Further specific stand had been taken that the respondents are maintaining two Registers for Madhavaram village since from the beginning relating to Section 18 and Section 28-A of the Act and in the said Registers, applications under Section 18 and Section 28-A of the Act pertaining to Boyanapalli and Madhavaram were entered. Volume-II of the Register consists of 270 pages. 54 applications given by their Counsel Sri.K.Subbarami Reddy had been entered at page Nos.262, 263, 264, 265 and 266 of the Volume-II of the Register pertaining to Madhavaram village. 16. Further it is stated that LAOP No.277/88 relates to Boyanapalli, H/o.Madhavaram village and LAOP No.2317/88 and batch relate to Madhavaram village. All these O.Ps. are disposed of by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet on 24-08-1998. Further clear stand had been taken that all these applications were acknowledged by the Special Deputy Collector, Sri Swamy Das on 30-11-98 and further particulars also had been furnished. 17. It is not doubt true that certain averments had been made in relation to Swamy Das in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. However, in the light of the material placed before this Court, the copies of the petition submitted under Section 28-A of the Act by Sri.K.Subbi Ram Reddy, Advocate who represented these parties before the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) and also in the light of the list of the applicants who applied for re- determination of the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act submitted by Sri K. Subbi Ram Reddy, Advocate, duly endorsed with seal on 30-11-1998 by the Special Deputy Collector, SSP, Unit IV, Rajampet, this Court is satisfied that the stand taken by the writ petitioners is a bona fide stand. May be that for want of records or for want of particulars, the respondents had chosen to deny all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. This court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to this aspect. Apart from this aspect of the matter, it is needless to say that the respondents under a statutory obligation to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act provided such obligations had been made in accordance with law. It is also pertinent to note that this is a case where the petitioners had lost the property and such rights of the petitioners to get adequate compensation to be safeguarded especially in the light of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 18. Hence, in the light of the material placed before this court, this court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J September 9, 2009. PN/SMR THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.25179 of 2007 September 9, 2009