THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7655 of 2001 25.2.2008 Between: M.Linga Reddy, S/o.Venkat Reddy And another … Petitioners and The Special Deputy Collector, L.A.-cum-Loc, Unit, S.R.S.P.Project, Pochampad P.O. Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7655 of 2001 ORDER: Two petitioners are residents of Ratnapur village of Balkonda Mandal in Nizamabad District. Their agricultural lands submerged in Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP), Pochampad. Therefore their lands and residential houses were acquired by the Government under notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) vide G.O.Rt.No.312, dated 15.1.1966. After following due process, Award No.1 of 1966, dated 31.5.1966, was passed. They allege that they along with others submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference but reference was not made. It appears that respondent referred Award under Section 18 of the Act, at the instance of other persons. This reference being O.P.No.312 of 1986 on the file of Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, was decreed on 05.6.1989, enhancing compensation awarded by respondent in Award No.1 of 1966. Petitioners therefore made an application on 19.8.1989 under Section 28A of the Act for redetermination, in vain. They therefore filed W.P.No.36855 of 1998 before this Court. By order dated 31.12.1998, this Court disposed of writ petition directing Special Deputy Collector, L.A.-cum-Loc Unit, SRSP – respondent herein; to dispose of the application made by first petitioner and two others under Section 28A of the Act. Respondent, after considering the matter, issued proceedings bearing No.C2/1619/92, dated 14.12.2000, informing petitioners that their application under Section 28A of the Act is already rejected on 24.12.1992 and therefore they are not entitled for redetermination under Section 28A of the Act. Assailing the proceedings dated 24.12.1992 and proceedings dated 14.12.2000, present writ petition is filed. Learned Counsel for petitioners, Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, submits that proceedings dated 24.12.1992 is admittedly addressed to Sri G.V. Subrahmanyam, Advocate, Nizamabad, and that petitioners have no knowledge of rejection of their application. He submits that while issuing said proceedings, respondent did not follow the procedure contemplated under Section 28A of the Act, and in the earlier proceedings in writ petition as well as contempt case, respondent did not even refer to the same. He nextly contends that Sri G.V.Subrahmanyam, is not the Advocate engaged by petitioners to appear before respondent in redetermination proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of any communication to petitioners, communication sent to Sri G.V. Subrahmanyam, cannot be given any importance. These contentions are refuted by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It is not denied that after this Court disposed of W.P.No.36855 of 1998 on 31.12.1998, respondent passed orders on 14.12.2000. A perusal of the same would show that initially land acquisition rehabilitation work of SRSP was being handled by seven separate unit offices of Special Deputy Collectors. Six of them were removed and records were transferred to one unit. Records were lost. Ultimately it appears that Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered detailed investigation. Pursuant thereto records were verified and respondent came across proceedings No.C2/1519/92, dated 24.12.1992, whereby and whereunder application of first petitioner and two others dated 19.8.1989 for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Act was rejected. Copy of the same was sent to Sri G.V.Subrahmanyam, Advocate, Nizamabad. For this reason, by proceedings dated 14.12.2000, respondent rejected claim for redetermination. The question whether application of petitioners was examined or not, does not much depend on whether such a copy has been sent to petitioners or their Advocate, whoever he might be. When petitioners came to this Court alleging that their application made in 1989 remained undisposed of, they cannot be permitted to take a new plea that copy of the order was not communicated to them, when respondent come forward with a copy of proceedings issued in 1992 stating that their application is rejected. Secondly, it is always presumption that all actions in the Government are taken in accordance with law unless contrary is proved and that before issuing proceedings, the modalities are followed. Admittedly the land was acquired in 1966 under Award No.1 of 1966. If at this point of time – after lapse of 32 years – respondent is directed to redetermine compensation under Section 28A of the Act, it would be travesty of justice. This Court, in such a case, ought not to exercise any discretion in favour of petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ February 25, 2008 (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS