DYAMANNA Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER/ LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions, the petitioners, who happen to be the losers of the lands in the acquisition for the Upper Krishna Project are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus for considering their claim for higher compensation under Section 28-A of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the compensation granted to the owners of the land that figured in the very same acquisition notification has been enhanced by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. They have also sought for quashing of the endorsements whereby their claim for the redetermination of compensation has been rejected by the respondents.

(2.) After service of notice respondent has entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Veena Hedge, who opposes grant of relief to the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all they had filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation on par with those who have been granted enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act on reference in respect of the lands which figured along with the petition lands in the very same acquisition notification; the same could not have been rejected by the respondent-LAO on the ground that petitioners lands although figure in the very same notification are situate in different villages and therefore the same need to be invalidated and further the matter needs to be remitted back for reconsideration.