Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nersu Veera Raju vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 August, 2023

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                               &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

               WRIT APPEAL No.801 OF 2023

Nersu Veera Raju S/o.Late Narasimha Rao,
Aged about 43 years, R/o.Epuru,
Hanuman Junction Post,
West Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh-521105 & 10 others.
                                            ... Petitioners

                           Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Land Acquisition Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District & 3 others.
                                             ...Respondents

                      Dt.: 08.08.2023

Per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ:


1.    The present writ appeal has been preferred against

the judgment and order dated 21.02.2023 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 dated 19.11.2021 issued by the Land

Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer (Deputy
                                                                  HCJ & AVSS, J
                                    2                  WRIT APPEAL No.801 OF 2023




Collector), Eluru, whereby the application of the petitioners

under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for

short 'the Act of 1894') was rejected on the ground of

abnormal delay.


3.   Section 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 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 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 sub-
     section (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 Sections 18 to
     28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply
     to a reference under Section 18."

     Thus, it is clear that Section 28A is an enabling

provision which allows an applicant to seek enhancement
                                                          HCJ & AVSS, J
                                3              WRIT APPEAL No.801 OF 2023




of the award of the Collector notwithstanding the fact that

an application has not been made by such an applicant to

the Collector under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, in a case

where the Court allows compensation in excess of the

amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 in

favour of persons interested in other lands covered by the

same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894.

However, the application under Section 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 dated 09.05.1988. 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 25th February, 2003, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.34,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.                      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
                                                                      HCJ & AVSS, J
                                         4                 WRIT APPEAL No.801 OF 2023




8th October, 2014, enhancing the compenstion from

Rs.40,000/- to Rs.55,000/-, 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 dated 9th May, 1988.


5.         It is no longer res integra that while a claimant-land

owner can claim enhancement of compensation in terms of

Section 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 others1, 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 Section 18 but
           whose land is covered by the same notification published under
           Section 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 Section 28-A of the Act had been made


1
    (1997) 6 SCC 59
                                                                      HCJ & AVSS, J
                                          5                WRIT APPEAL No.801 OF 2023



           on 24-6-1989 within three months, he is entitled to the same
           compensation awarded by the Reference Court in its award and
           decree dated 3-4-1989 as affirmed by the High Court on
           appeal.

           ...

14. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 18-6-1984. The Collector made his award on 21- 1-1986 under Section 11. On reference under Section 18, at the instance of some of the claimants, the Reference Court, by its award and decree dated 3-4-1989, enhanced the compensation. On appeal, it was confirmed. The application seeking re-determination of the compensation under Section 28-A(1) came to be made on 24-4-1989. Thus, it is seen that by operation of the limitation prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 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 others2,

wherein it is held thus:

"3. A reading thereof clearly indicates that a person whose land is acquired under a common notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act but who failed to avail of the remedy under Section 18, is eligible to make a written application

(1997) 6 SCC 280 HCJ & AVSS, J

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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 dated

19.11.2021 of the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue

Divisional Officer (Deputy Collector), Eluru, whereby the

applications under Section 28-A filed by the appellants HCJ & AVSS, J

have been rejected as having been filed beyond the

prescribed time.