APHC010399222022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 24909 OF 2022 Between: 1. BOLLU SUSHEELAMMA, W/O BOLLU RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS ,R/O D.NO.14/139,KAPU STREET, NELLORE,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. NARAYANA VINAYANI, W/O SANKAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,R/O D.NO.14/139,KAPU STREET, NELLORE,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. GANGISETTI VIJAYANI, W/O VENKATA LAVANYA , AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ,R/O D.NO.14/139, KAPU STREET,NELLORE,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. .BOLLU PENCHALA NARASIMHA CHAKRAVARTHY, S/O LATE RAMA MURTHY , AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,R/O D.NO.14/139, KAPU STREET,NELLORE,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT, SECRETA RIAT,AMA RAVATI. 2. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT,RAPUR,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action 3rd.respondent in rejecting the Petitioners application dated 16.05.2018 filed under Section 28 A of Land Acquisition act,1894 seeking re-determination of the Compensation in respect of the petitioners' structures and trees in pursuant to Award No.38/89 dated 25.01.1990 without giving reasonable opportunity as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to section 28 A of Land Acquisition Act,1894 and consequently set-aside the Endorsement Vide Rc.A No.166/1987 dated 05.07.2018 and direct the 3rd respondent to re-consider the application dated 16.05.2015 filed under section 28 A of Land Acquisition Act,1894 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to re-consider the application dated 16.05.2018 filed under section 28 A of Land Acquisition Act,1894 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KAUSHIK KUMBHAJADALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following order: Heard Ms. Chundri Udaya, learned counsel appearing for Sri Kaushik Kumbhajadala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Chandra Shekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent rejecting the application of the petitioners dated 16.05.2018 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), claiming 3 redetermination of the land acquisition compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Award No.38/39 dated 25.11.1990, on the basis of the orders passed in LAOP No.3 of 2011 on the file of the V Additional District Judge Nellore dated 17.10.2014 3. It is contended that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the claimant, late Sri Bollu Ramamurthy. The lands of the said Bollu Ramamurthy were the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings initiated for foreshore submersion to Kandaleru Reservoir. An award dated 25.11.1990 was passed vide Award No.38/39. Late Bollu Ramamurthy received the award amount. Being dissatisfied with the award passed in Award No.38/39, some of the landowners filed an application under Section 18 of the Act, and that under the said Reference, the Land Acquisition compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced for land, trees, well and for structures, etc., vide order in LAOP No.3 of 2011 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Nellore dated 17.10.2014. 4. Late Bollu Ramamurthy did not file any application seeking Reference under Section 18 of the Act during his lifetime. After his death, the legal heirs of the said Bollu Ramamurthy filed an application under Section 28A of the Act in view of the orders passed in LAOP No.3 of 2011. They have filed an application under Section 28A of the Act seeking redetermination of compensation in accordance with the judgment and decree passed in LAOP No.3 of 2011. The 3rd respondent rejected the application dated 16.05.2018 of the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act. 4 5. Against the order in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2011, the Land Acquisition Officer filed an appeal before the High Court in L.A.A.S.No.63 of 2015. This Court granted interim orders suspending the award subject to condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. On such deposit, claimants were granted liberty to withdraw the same. 6. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act was rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable basing on the interim order of the High Court in L.A.A.S.M.P.No.318 of 2015 in L.A.A.S.No.63 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that they were not aware even of the interim orders passed in L.A.A.S.No.63 of 2015 and it is stated that, on verification, the said LAAS was disposed of by this Court on 07.07.2023. Few relevant dates with respect to respective proceedings are: Date of order in LAOP 17.10.2014 Date of order in LAAS 07.07.2023 Date of application under Section 28A 16.05.2018 Disposed of the application under Section 28A 05.07.2018 7. Considered the submissions. For the purpose of adjudication of the present dispute, it is relevant to refer the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 28 A of the Act is reads as follows: 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 5 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. " 8. In the facts of the case, on the basis of the order dated 17.10.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2011 the application under Section 28A of the Act was filed on 16.05.2018. Against the order dated 17.10.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2011, the respondents filed an appeal in L.A.A.S.No.63 of 2015. The said appeal was disposed of on 07.07.2023. The application dated 16.05.2018 under Section 28A of the Act was rejected on 05.07.2018. 9. From the above provisions of the Section 28A of the Act, it appears that the subject application was not filed within three months of period stipulated 6 under the Act. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Banwari Vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC)1. Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Pradeep Kumari 2, wherein it was held that Section 28A of the Act is a beneficial legislation enacted in order to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people, the principle of interpretation which would be required to be adopted is the one which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharatsing vs. State of Maharashtra3, contends that the application dated 16.05.2018 of the petitioners was filed while the appeal in LAAS No.63 of 2015, arising out of the judgment and decree in LAOP No.3 of 2011, was pending. It is further contended that the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have treated the said application as premature and kept it pending till LAAS No.63 of 2015 was decided, and thereafter passed appropriate orders in terms of Section 28A of the Act. It is relevant to extract the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as follows: “18. The Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 based on the awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was decided on 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3685 2 (1995) 2 SCC 736 3 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1453 7 25.10.2000 when the appeals therefrom were pending. The Collector ought to have kept the application pending till the appeals were decided on 23.03.2009. On principle, the High Court is correct and justified in the view taken in the impugned judgment that there cannot be successive applications under Section 28A in view of Pradeep Kumari (supra). But that is not the point arising for consideration here. No doubt, the second application dated 27.05.2009 for re-fixation in light of the appellate court judgment is not maintainable. However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the application when the matter was pending in appeal, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the application dated 31.12.1992 should be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows. The Land Acquisition Collector is directed to consider afresh the Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 and pass orders in the light of the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009 in First Appeal Nos.569 and 570 of 1997 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. For enabling the Collector to pass orders as above, the order dated 25.10.2000 is set aside. However, the amounts already paid are to be duly adjusted.” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placing reliance of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh4, contends that the petitioners should not be deprived of just compensation for their land. 12. Considered the submissions. 13. This Court is of the view that, as on the date of consideration of the application of the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act, the appeal in LAAS No.63 of 2015 was pending for consideration before this Court. It is stated that the petitioners were not aware of the pendency of the said appeal. 4 2020 (2) SCC 569 8 14. The application of the petitioners was for enhancement under Section 28A of the Act with reference to the award passed in LAOP No.3 of 2011 dated 17.10.2014. 15. The Land Acquisition Officer, in the facts of the case, was exercising a quasi-judicial jurisdiction and, being aware of the pendency of the said appeal, could have awaited the judgment that would be passed in the said appeal in LAAS No.63 of 2015, and thereafter passed appropriate orders accordingly. 16. In this regard, placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex court referred above, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to take up the application afresh and pass appropriate orders in terms of the Judgment and decree passed in LAAS No.63 of 2013, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 27.04.2026 BSK 9 49 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 24909 OF 2022 Date: 27.04.2026 BSK