AKULA NARAYANA SWAMY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India raise common and identical question of law and are dealt with together. In all the revision petitions, the challenge is as to the order passed by the second respondent-Special Deputy Collector (LA) APIIC Limited, Visakhapatnam, camp office at Kakinada dt.30-11-2002, whereunder the petitioners were informed that the applications filed by them under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") are not maintainable since the claimants have availed the benefit under Sec.18 of the Act in O.P. Nos.45/99,89/99 and 46/99 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada respectively.

(2.) The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the revision petitions, are as under: On requisition made for establishment of iron plant by ESSAR Gujarath Limited, Kakinada, certain lands were acquired. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the market value at Rs.63,000.00. Being not satisfied with the award, the claimants sought a reference under Sec.18 of the Act. Accordingly, the matters were referred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, who by common order dt.30-9-1999 enhanced the market value at Rs.97,650.00. Some of the claimants, who have not satisfied with the award passed by the reference court, filed appeals before this Court in A.S. No.616/2000 and batch. A Division Bench of this Court by its judgments dt.13-8-2002 further enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,69,400.00 per acre. On such enhancement of the compensation, the claimants in the O.P. No.45/99 filed an appeal with an application seeking condonation of delay of 995 days. A Division Bench of this Court comprising of Justice B.S.A. Swamy and Dr. Justice G. Yethirajulu passed the following order in CMP No.17917/2002 in AS (SR) No.70048/2002 dt.21-9-2002:

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners in all the revision petitions submits that once a Division Bench of this Court observed that the petitioners need not file appeals and can approach the Collector under Sec.28-A, it is incumbent upon the Collector to redetermine the compensation in the light of the observation, as referred to above, and it is not open for him to reject the applications as not maintainable. Since the Collector committed an illegality in not following the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to the same compensation as awarded by this court in A.S. No.616/2000 and batch dt.13-8-2002.