Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1168 (AP)

Nersu Veera Raju v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2023-08-08

A.V.SESHA SAI, DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dtd. 21/2/2023 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.2976 of 2022, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioners had challenged the Endorsement dtd. 19/11/2021 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer (Deputy Collector), Eluru, whereby the application of the petitioners under Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') was rejected on the ground of abnormal delay. 3. Sec. 28A of the Act of 1894 reads thus: "28A. 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 Sec. 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Sec. 4, sub-sec. (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 Sec. 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-sec., 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 subsec. (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving from 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 subsec. (2) may, by written application to the Collector, required that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Ss. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under subsec. (2) may, by written application to the Collector, required that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Ss. 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Sec. 18." Thus, it is clear that Sec. 28A is an enabling provision which allows an applicant to seek enhancement of the award of the Collector notwithstanding the fact that an application has not been made by such an applicant to the Collector under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1894, in a case where the Court allows compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Sec. 11 in favour of persons interested in other lands covered by the same notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1894. However, the application under Sec. 28A has to be made within three months from the date of the award of the Court. 4. In the backdrop of the afore-mentioned legal provision, it can be seen that the lands of the appellants were acquired for construction of FCI godowns in Epuru Village resulting in an award dtd. 9/5/1988. The land owners of the neighbouring lands filed L.A.O.P.No.102 of 1991 before the competent Civil Court i.e., the Senior Civil Judge, Eluru for enhancement of compensation and the same was decided on 25/2/2003, enhancing the compensation from Rs.34, 000.00 to Rs.40, 000.00. The matter ultimately went up in appeal in A.S.Nos.2535 and 3911 of 2003, which were disposed of by the High Court on 8/10/2014, enhancing the compensation from Rs.40, 000.00 to Rs.55, 000.00, based upon which, the compensation at enhanced rates were paid to such appellants at rates higher than the ones awarded by the Collector in its award dtd. 9/5/1988. 5. It is no longer res integra that while a claimant-land owner can claim enhancement of compensation in terms of Sec. 28A of the Act of 1894, yet the period of three months within which he is required to file such an application ought to be reckoned from the date of the award by the Reference Court. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Union of India and others Vs. Mangatu Ram and others, (1997) 6 SCC 59 where the Apex Court in Paras 11 & 14 held: "11. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Union of India and others Vs. Mangatu Ram and others, (1997) 6 SCC 59 where the Apex Court in Paras 11 & 14 held: "11. A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the persons interested who had not sought reference under Sec. 18 but whose land is covered by the same notification published under Sec. 4(1) and who are aggrieved by the acquisition, are entitled to make a written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Reference Court for redertermination of the compensation. Admittedly, since the application under Sec. 28-A of the Act had been made on 24/6/1989 within three months, he is entitled to the same compensation awarded by the Reference Court in its award and decree dtd. 3/4/1989 as affirmed by the High Court on appeal. ... 14. Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act was published on 18/6/1984. The Collector made his award on 21- 1-1986 under Sec. 11. On reference under Sec. 18, at the instance of some of the claimants, the Reference Court, by its award and decree dtd. 3/4/1989, enhanced the compensation. On appeal, it was confirmed. The application seeking re-determination of the compensation under Sec. 28-A(1) came to be made on 24/4/1989. Thus, it is seen that by operation of the limitation prescribed under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 28-A, since the written application was not filed within three months from the date of the award of the Reference Court, the application is barred by limitation. The compensation granted by the Collector on the basis of the said application is clearly illegal. Therefore, the view of the High Court also is incorrect." This view was further reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Tota Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1997) 6 SCC 280 wherein it is held thus: "3. A reading thereof clearly indicates that a person whose land is acquired under a common notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Act but who failed to avail of the remedy under Sec. 18, is eligible to make a written application within three months from the date of the award of the Court enhancing the compensation. It has been interpreted by this Court that the "court" means Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction to whom reference under Sec. 18 would lie. It has been interpreted by this Court that the "court" means Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction to whom reference under Sec. 18 would lie. Admittedly, the award of the reference court having been made on 18/5/1990, the limitation began to run from that date. The proviso to Sec. 28-A gives a right to the persons to obtain the certified copy of the award and decree and the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the award and the decree shall be excluded in computing the period of three months. In view of the express language, the question of knowledge does not arise and, therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the limitation of three months begins to start from the date of the knowledge is clearly unsustainable and cannot be accepted. The High Court, therefore, is right in its decision in that behalf." 6. Admittedly, the petitioners had filed the applications in the year 2018 and therefore were clearly beyond the period of three months as envisaged under Sec. 28A of the Act of 1894. 7. In that view of the matter, the Writ Court committed no error of law in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants and upholding the Endorsement dtd. 19/11/2021 of the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer (Deputy Collector), Eluru, whereby the applications under Sec. 28-A filed by the appellants have been rejected as having been filed beyond the prescribed time. 8. We do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.