IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 579 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/02/2008 in WP NO : 7655 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M.Linga Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, R/o Ratnapur Village, Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District. 2 Raju Bai W/o Kishta Reddy, R/o Rathapur Village Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District ..... APPELLANT(S) AND The Special Deputy Collector, L.A.-cum-LOC Unit, S.R.S.P.Project Pochampad P.O. Bakdonda Mandal, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order in W.P.No. 7655 of 2001, dated 25- 2-2008, this appeal has been filed. The grievance of the appellants-petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the application of the petitioners filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) had not been considered. After hearing the learned Advocates and upon perusal of the reply filed by the respondent, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition. Upon hearing the learned Advocates as well as upon perusal of the record, we find that the petition was rightly rejected on the ground of delay and laches. It is pertinent to note that the order passed in December, 1992 as well as the order dated 14-12-2000 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, LA-cum-LOC Unit, SRSP Project, Pochampad had been challenged in the said petition. The facts which had given rise to the said petition in nutshell are as under: The land of the appellants-petitioners had been acquired in 1966 for the purpose of Sri Ram Sagar Project and an award had been passed on 31-5-1966. Reference application under Section 18 of the Act had been filed by some of the persons whose lands had been acquired for the same project. An award under Section 18 of the Act was made by the Court on 5-6-1989 enhancing the compensation. The case of the appellants-petitioners is that they had filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act, but the benefit of enhancement of compensation was not given to them. As the appellants-petitioners did not receive any communication from the Government authority, they filed W.P.No. 36855 of 1998. The said petition was partly allowed, whereby this Court had directed the respondent-Authority to dispose of the application filed by the appellants-petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act. In pursuance of the aforestated order passed by this Court in W.P.No.36855 of 1998, it was found that the application filed under Section 28-A of the Act had already been disposed of in December, 1992 and the said fact had been duly informed to learned Advocate Sri G.V.Subrahmanyam, who was on record. The said communication was sent to the said Advocate by registered post acknowledgment due. With great difficulty the Government authorities could trace the said record because by that time, most of the record had been destroyed as per normal practice of the Government. Thereafter the petitioners filed W.P.No.7655 of 2001. It has been submitted that the communication sent to the Advocate was never received by the learned Advocate. The said fact cannot be believed for the reason that the communication was sent under registered post acknowledgment due. Upon hearing the Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we find that the petitioners are quite indolent and mainly on that ground the petition was not entertained. The petitioners ought to have done necessary follow up and there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed on behalf of the authority that the learned Advocate who was on record was duly informed about the rejection of the application filed under Section 28-A of the Act by registered post acknowledgment due. The aforestated facts have been duly dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the order rejecting the petition. We do not see any reason to interfere with the said order, which is just and reasonable. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18-6-2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies