GATTA SURYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the endorsement dated 28.4.2008 of respondent No. 2, namely the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, APIIC, Kakinada, East Godavari District, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), claiming compensation as per the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2002, passed by this Court in AS Nos. 607 and 616 of 2000, holding that it is barred by limitation. An extent of Acs. 467.00 in Thammavaram and Vakalapudi Villages, including the land of the petitioners, was acquired by respondent No. 2 based on the requisition of M/s. Essar Gujarat Limited, Hyderabad, for establishing sponge iron plant, and award dated 15.4.1991, was passed in Award No. 2 of 1991, was passed fixing compensation of Rs. 63,000/- for plain land and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for land covered by pits, and while so as M/s. Essar Gujarat Limited, Hyderabad, failed to establish the sponge plant, the land was transferred to APIIC. Not satisfied with the compensation fixed and awarded, some of the land owners, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, and the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in OP No. 6 of 1992, vide judgment dated 30.9.1999, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 63,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 97,650/- per acre. Assailing the said judgment and decree, some of the claimants filed appeals in AS No. 607 of 2000 and batch, while the respondents filed cross-objections. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment and decree dated 13.8.2002 allowed the appeals partly enhancing the compensation, awarded by the reference Court from Rs. 97,650/- to Rs. 1,69.400/- and dismissed the cross-objections. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4196 to 4201 of 2003, filed by the respondents, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by orders dated 6.5.2003.

(2.) Pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and during the pendency of the S.L.P. filed by the respondents against the said judgment, the petitioners, who did not seek reference of the matter to the civil Court and who did not file any appeal before this Court, filed petition before respondent No. 2 under Section 28A of the Act, for payment of compensation, as awarded by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30.9.1999 in AS No. 607 of 2000 and Batch. However, respondent No. 2 vide award dated 31.1.2007 enhanced the compensation in the case of the petitioners as awarded by the reference Court, but not as awarded by Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners, therefore, again filed petitions under Section 28A of the Act, to pay compensation as awarded by the Division Bench of this Court, in AS Nos. 607 of 2000 and batch, dated 30.9.1999. But, respondent No. 2 vide endorsement dated 28.4.2008, rejected the petition of the petitioners on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioners, as stated above, filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land of the petitioners along with other land owners was acquired by the respondents ad even award was passed. Even though the petitioners did not seek reference of the matter to the civil Court and filed further appeal for enhancement of compensation, but having regard to the fact that other claimants, who sought reference of the matter to the civil Court and also filed appeal, were granted enhanced compensation for the acquisition of their lands, he submits that having regard to the provisions of Section 28A of the Act, the petitioners also are entitled to be paid the enhanced compensation as awarded in appeal by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of other land owners, and there can be no limitation for seeking enhanced compensation, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Union of India v. Munshi Ram, 2006 AIR(SC) 1716 He thus submitted that respondent No. 2 committed a grave error in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act, for grant of enhanced compensation as awarded by the Division Bench of this Court, by reason of the impugned endorsement, on the ground that it is barred by limitation, and prayed that the same be set aside and respondent No. 1 be directed to pay enhanced compensation, as awarded by a Division Bench of this Court, in the appeals filed by other land owners.