HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21443 of 2009 Date : 23.12.2011 Between : Edigi Narsimha Goud & others. …..Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, through Revenue Divisional Officer (L.A.O), Sangareddy. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21443 of 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking the relief, which reads as under : “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that Writ, order or direction may be issued more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus; 1. declaring the inaction of the respondent in not determining the value and additional benefits payable under the Land Acquisition Act as per the application dated 1-9-1999 filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of land admeasuring Ac.13.38 guntas in Sy.No.211 of Indrakaran village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District in Land Acquisition file No.D3/14/82 based on the judgement dated 26-04-1999 in O.P.No.553 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Medak at Sangareddy as unjust, unwarranted, arbitrary. 2. To direct the respondent to determine the value of the land of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.13.38 guntas in Sy.No.211 of Indrakaran village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District in Land Acquisition file No.D3/14/82 based on the judgment dated 26- 04-1999 in O.P.No.553 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.” 2. The petitioners herein are the agriculturists and residents of Yeddumailaram village in Medak District. Large extent of land was notified for acquisition, on the requisition of the defence authorities for the purpose of establishing a defence factory. For such public purpose, along with the other large extents of land, land admeasuring Ac.17.38 gts. in Sy.No.211 of Indrakaran village in Sangareddy Mandal of Medak District was also acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the land acquisition proceedings, award was passed on 10.05.1985 in file No.D3/14/1982, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.5,500/- per acre, categorizing the land into two categories. As there were rival claims for compensation for the aforesaid piece of land, matter was referred to civil Court in O.P.No.123 of 1986 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and the said O.P. was disposed of on compromise memo filed by the parties on 31st of January 1989. 3. After compromise is recorded with regard to the dispute of apportionment, the petitioners have filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation, but the same was not referred to. But, with regard to some other land covered by the same notification, there was a reference in O.P.No.533 of 1987 to the Court of Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in which, reference Court passed award enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,000/- and Rs.5,500/- per acre to Rs.11,000/- per acre uniformly for the lands in Indrakaran village. After the reference Court passed the award enhancing the compensation, by applying for certified copy of the award, petitioners have filed applications on 01.09.1999 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking re-determination of compensation awarded for their lands. They have been making representations for disposal of said applications, but it appears, in view of the pendency of First Appeals preferred by the State in A.S.No.3092 of 1999 and batch, the applications of petitioners were not considered. Though the appeals were dismissed on 03.02.2006, thereafter also, petitioners submitted representations reiterating their request for disposal of their applications filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. When the respondents have not considered the said representations for disposal of their applications, the petitioners approached this Court by filing this writ petition, seeking directions for disposal of their applications for re-determination of compensation for the lands acquired. 4. It is the case of petitioners that inspite of filing applications within the time frame as contemplated under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without any just reason, respondents are not considering the same. It is submitted by Sri G.Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that though valuable agricultural lands of petitioners were taken possession for the public purpose of establishing a defence factory, even for re-determination of just compensation, their applications are not being considered, though they were filed within the time as contemplated under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. The respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the Land Acquisition Officer, has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, while admitting that a total extent of Ac.17.38 gts. of land situated in Indrakaran village is acquired, it is stated that in view of the rival claims, reference was ordered under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is numbered as O.P.No.123 of 1986. It is stated that as per the compromise decree, petitioners were declared as owners and entitled to receive compensation to an extent of Ac.13.38 gts. In the counter, respondent, while acknowledging the filing of applications by the petitioners, clearly stated that the applications were filed within time as contemplated under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, but it is stated that the applications are being considered after the dismissal of the appeals filed by the State. 6. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory obligation by not considering the applications filed by the petitioners for re- determination of compensation awarded to them. It is not in dispute that with regard to the land covered by same notification, which was subject matter of O.P.No.553 of 1987, compensation was enhanced from Rs.4,000/- and Rs.5,500/- to Rs.11,000/- uniformly. Even for payment of such compensation, the petitioners are made to run from pillar to post, and there is no reason at all for not considering the applications filed by the petitioners, for this long time. The mere pendency of appeals filed by the respondents against the award of the reference Court, is no ground for not deciding the applications for re- determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The very Legislative intent behind the said provision is to extend the benefit of enhanced compensation for the land owners, who are deprived of their land for a public purpose, on par with the claimants whose cases are referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also to be noticed that the appeals filed by the respondents were dismissed on 03.02.2006, confirming the judgment of the reference Court. Inspite of the same, even thereafter, the respondents have not moved in the matter for disposal of the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Though possession of land was taken several years back, even after dismissal of the appeals filed by the State confirming the award of the reference Court, in the counter, it is further stated that some more time is required to complete the formalities for re- determination of compensation. 7. As the respondent-authorities have admitted receipt of applications within the time frame as contemplated under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, and in view of the dismissal of the appeals preferred by the State against the award of the reference Court, there appears no reason at all for keeping the applications pending for the last several years. The inaction on the part of respondents is totally arbitrary and illegal. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to dispose of the applications filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate award as contemplated under Section 28-A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within a period of four months from today. 9. Writ petition is allowed subject to above directions. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd December 2011 ajr