J SRIRANGA RAO Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PEDDAPALLI KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the petitioner in Sy. No. 4/B admeasuring an extent of Ac.1-10 guntas situated at Adrial village, Karimnagar District, was acquired by the 1st respondent for the purpose of mining operations of the Singareni Collieries. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was published on 21-6-1985. An Award was passed on 18-9-1987 in respect of various items of lands as well as that of the petitioner. The compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 16,000.00 per acre for went lands in category-I; Rs. 7,000.00 per acre for the dry land in category-II; and Rs. 6,000.00 per acre for dry land in category-Ill. Inasmuch as the title of the petitioner's land was in dispute, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The reference was taken up as OP No. 11 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli. The Reference Court ordered OP No. 11 of 1988 in favour of the petitioner, through order dated 21-4-1989. It is the case of the petitioner that he received the compensation under protest from the Court after disposal of the reference.

(2.) In the meanwhile, at the instance of the other land owners, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act in respect of other lands and the same was registered as OP No. 77 of 1988 in the same Court. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 18,000.00, Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 9,500/- per acre respectively for the three categories referred to above, through order dated 30-10-1989.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that enclosing a copy of the order and decree in OP No. 77 of 1988, he submitted application to the respondent under Section 28-A of the Act on 27-1-1990. However, the same was rejected by the respondent through orders dated 16-12-1992 on three grounds, viz., (1) that the application of the petitioner is not within the limitation; (2) the petitioner has not received the amount under protest; and (3) the application is not enclosed by the certified copy of the judgment. It is alleged in the writ petition that the said three grounds of rejection are contrary to records and cannot be sustained in law. Ultimately, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari calling for the records for quashing the proceedings dated 16-12-1992 and for a consequential direction to predetermine the compensation for his land under Section 28-A of the Act and to pay compensation.