THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19378 of 2002 ORDER: The lands of the petitioners and certain others were acquired for the purpose of an irrigation project. After following the prescribed procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award. Some of the land owners, not the petitioners, filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) with a prayer to refer the matter to the civil Court. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet and the claims were adjudicated in L.A.O.P.No.2616 of 1988. Through its judgment, dated 23.10.1998, the trial Court enhanced the compensation. Some of the petitioners filed W.P.No.20972 of 2001 before this Court stating that though they filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act, respondent No.4 did not take necessary steps. The writ petition was disposed of on 15.10.2001 at the admission stage, directing respondent No.4 to take necessary steps in accordance with law. This writ petition is filed stating that the applications, dated 22.03.1999, submitted by them were not disposed of. They seek a direction to respondent No.4 to pass orders on their applications, dated 22.03.1999, and extend the benefit in terms of the decree, dated 23.10.1998, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet in L.A.O.P.No.2616 of 1988. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The record discloses that some of the petitioners approached this Court stating inter alia that their applications, dated 22.03.1999, filed under Section 28-A of the Act were not considered. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage directing the Land Acquisition Officer to pass appropriate orders within three months. It is stated that a contempt case was filed and at that stage, respondent No.4 herein issued an endorsement, dated 07.03.2002. He made a reference to the letter, dated 22.03.1999, submitted by an Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and stated the following reasons for rejecting the applications. (1) The claimants in Sl.No.10, 23, 25, 41, 42, 63 were not in this W.P. order. (2) The then Special Deputy Collector acknowledged only on the covering letter of the Advocate and not put any initial or office date seal on any one of the applications filed by the claimants under section 28-A. (3) The applications were not filled up properly. The Advocate and the petitioners were not signed on the claim petition showing in the statement of the re-determine compensation particulars. (4) The claims in Sl.No.10, 38, 63, 74 were not mentioned their property particulars. (5) The claimants in Sl.No.88 and 89 were already covered under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. (6) The claimants in Sl.No.10 and 27 were not covered in the Award. (7) The applications under Section 28-A of the Act were entered in the 28-A Register. But the Special Deputy Collector not signed after entered the applications. The petitioners are still under the impression that no orders have been passed on their applications, dated 22.03.1999. They did not choose to challenge the endorsement, dated 07.03.2002, which, in fact, was filed by them along with the writ petition. Therefore, the very prayer is defective. Secondly, the petitioners are not able to point out as to how the grounds mentioned by respondent No.4 are untenable or illegal. Respondent No.4 stated inter alia that the applications filed under Section 28-A of the Act were not signed by the applicants or their Advocate. Almost as a reply to this, an Advocate on behalf of the petitioners issued notice, dated 16.04.2002, wherein he said that it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to put the signatures on all the applications and the responsibility lies upon him. He proceeded to add that it is not at all the duty of the petitioners to put the signatures on the applications. The statement that the applications lack particulars remained unrebutted. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 15.04.2010. kdl