ELUGURI SAVITHRAMMA W/O JAGAL REDDY Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AT MIRYALGUDA TOWN, NALGONDA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH a notification dated 25 -05 -1993, published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), the Government acquired 281 acres of land in various survey numbers of Rangareddygudem Village, P.A. Pally Manal, Nalgonda District for the purpose of construction of a filtration plant and pumping station, to supply water to the city of Hyderabad. The land of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.372, 374 and 389 of the said village was also included in the acquisition. The respondent herein passed an award dated 01 -06 -1994, fixing the market value at Rs. 9,000/ -per acre for dry lands and Rs. 10,500/ -for wet lands. At the instance of the owners of other bits of land, covered by the same notification, two references under Section 18 of the Act were made to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. They were taken up as O.P.Nos.61 and 62 of 1995. Through judgment dated 08 -08 -2000, the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12,000/ - for the lands, covered under the reference. The claimants filed A.S.Nos.3790 and 3791 of 2000 before this Court, not only for further enhancement of the compensation, but also claiming compensation for trees and bore -wells that existed upon their lands. The respondent tiled A.S.No.3784 of 2000. Through a common judgment dated 10 -11 -2004, this Court enhanced the compensation for the land, to Rs. 28,000/ - per acre. The claim for compensation for the bore -well was rejected. So far as the claim for trees is concerned, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for recording of evidence and determination of the compensation. On such remand, the trial Court passed a decree on 26 -10 -2009, determining the compensation for the trees, at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ -per tree.

(2.) THE petitioners obtained copy of the judgment and decree dated 26 -10 -2009 in O.P.No.62 of 1995 on 17 -12 -2009, and submitted claims under Section 28A of the Act on 06 -02 -2010 and 10 -02 -2010, respectively. Alleging that the applications under Section 28A of the Act are not being considered, the petitioners filed W.P.No.6199 of 2011. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondent herein to pass orders under Section 28A of the Act, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. C.C.No.1318 of 2011 was filed complaining that the respondent did not implement the directions issued by this Court. During the pendency of the Contempt Case, the respondent passed orders dated 31 -10 -2011, rejecting the application of the petitioners. The Contempt Case was closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the remedies vis -a -vis the order dated 31 -10 -2011. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that the view taken by the respondent that the application under Section 28A of the Act, if at all, ought to have been filed with reference to the judgment and decree dated 08 -08 -2000 passed in O.P.Nos. 61 and 62 of 1995, and not on the basis of the order passed after remand, cannot be sustained in law. According to them, the latest of the awards/decrees passed by the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, in respect of the lands covered by the same notification would constitute the basis for an application under Section 28A of the Act. It is pleaded that once this Court has remanded the matter to a Civil Court, with certain directions, and a decree is passed by the Civil Court after remand, a cause of action would arise for the owner of a land, which is acquired through the same notification.