THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27510 of 2007 Date: 07.02.2008 Between: Bokka Venkateswara Rao and others … Petitioners AND The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari district. And another … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.S.Sheshu Counsel for respondents: A.G.P. for Land Acquisition HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27510 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 12.4.2007 of respondent No.1 whereby he rejected the request of the petitioners to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). Heard Smt.K.Swarna Sheshu, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents. Certain lands of the petitioners were acquired alongwith other lands for construction of houses to the general public by respondent No.2. In respect of the lands of the petitioners award was passed under Section 11(2) of the Act on 30.9.1994. One of the claimants Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao, who was the only person who did not give consent for passing the award, got the dispute referred to civil Court under section 18 of the Act which was registered as L.A.O.P.No.32 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram. The said O.P., was disposed of by order dated 30.10.2006 wherein the market value was enhanced. The petitioners approached respondent No.1 seeking re- determination of compensation under section 28A of the Act on par with the judgment and decree in O.P.No.32 of 1997. The said representation having been rejected, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. A perusal of the material on record shows that the award is a consent award passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. Though in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioners averred that they did not give their consent for passing the award and that they were forced to sign on several papers while paying the compensation amount, no material is filed to substantiate this averment. Therefore, on the basis of this mere ipse dixit of the petitioners, I am not prepared to accept the contention of the petitioners that the award in question is not a consent award. A perusal of the award shows that the same was passed with the consent of the petitioners. Section 28A of the Act reads as under: “28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court:-- (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.” It is evident from the above re-produced provision that the persons who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector are entitled to seek re-determination of compensation. Therefore, the petitioners, on whose consent the award was passed, cannot be considered as the persons aggrieved by the award of the Collector. They are therefore, not entitled to seek the benefit of re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Act. On a consideration of the above relevant facts, respondent No.1 by a reasoned order rejected the request of the petitioners for re- determination. Having carefully considered the order of respondent No.1 impugned in the writ petition, I am of the view that the same does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35985 of 2007 filed by the petitioners seeking interim relief is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:07.02.2008 mdaa