KESHAV RAM Vs. ASSITANT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands, of, the predecessors-in-interest, of co- petitioners No.1, 2, and 3 to 6 herein, namely respectrively one Lajje Ram, and, one Fattu, stood, under a common notification, of, 23.11.1982, hence, acquired for construction of NH-21. The land acquisition Collector concerned, vis-a-vis, the lands of the afore, determined compensation amount. However, the afore predecessorsin-interest, of, the afore co-petitioners, standing aggrieved by determination of compensation, vis-a-vis, their acquired lands, hence, by the Land Acquisition Collector, rather through, theirs constituting, a valid reference, under, Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the learned Reference Court concerned, sought enhancement of compensation determined, vis-a-vis, their lands, by the Land Acquisition Collector, (a) and, their land reference petition bearing No. 9 of 1987, stood, under a common verdict rendered thereon, on 1.9.1988, answered in their favour, and, therethrough compensation, vis-a-vis, their land, stood, enhanced. However, the predecessor-ininterest of co-petitioner No.7 to 9, namely Jagat Ram, and, Mansu Ram, did not constitute any valid reference, against the determination of compensation, vis-a-vis, them by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned. However, the effect(s) thereof would be answered hereinafter.

(2.) Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting litigants, do not controvert, the factum qua the landowners, other than, the predecessors-in-interest, of co-petitioners No.1 to 6 herein, proceeding, to constitute RFAs bearing RFA No. 44 of 1988, RFA No. 72 of 1988, RFA No. 69 of 1988 before this Court, and, (a) therethrough, statutory benefits higher than the one awarded by the learned Reference Court, upon, the apposite land reference petitions hence stood accorded, vis-a-vis, them. Upon, bestowing of benefits, upon, the landowners concerned, whereuponwhom, this Court through, Annexure P-4, had accorded relief, higher than the one accorded, vis-a-vis, them, in their respectively constituted land reference petitions, (b) one Janawar alias Jorawar, arrayed as co-petitioner No.1 in Land Reference Case No. 6 of 1987, and, one Lajja Ram, one Fateh Chand @ Fattu, and, one Dhani Ram, all respectively arrayed as co-petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1987, proceeded, to, on 5.6.1997, constitute a petition under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, for, hence, vis-a-vis, them also compensation amount, being determined, at par, with the appellants, in RFA No. 44 of 1988, decided on 20.03.1986. The afore requisite application, cast under the provisions of Section 28-A, of the Land Acquisition Act before the land Land Acquisition Collector, and, borne in Annexure P-2, stood dismissed, by the latter vide order rendered on 29.1.2014, borne in Annexure P-1. The petitioners are aggrieved therefrom, hence, motioned this Court.

(3.) As expostulated in a judgment, rendered by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a case titled as Md. Maqdoom Ahmed and another vs. Special Deputy Collector, 2003 4 ALD 715, a period limitation of three months, stands, prescribed, for the relevant purpose, rather in Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, and, the afore being not relaxable nor condonable, through, an application, cast under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.