IN THE HIGH COURT C C
CIRCUIT BENCH Afr
DATED THIS mg 15*" s;5PT;€,A2:sE1é2oCs
THE HON'BLE MR.
:§o.i7C12p}gCi37(LA)
BETwEBN~;C % ' C
1. S»::§$:f.i(ISubh2£diaz§1Jn_a,v
. V. - A W./0 fats Kfifenkataramalu,
' gbajit years,
2." S;iK.V¢;:§;aéegh,
SEE} Kg__Vei3i{ata:'an';aia,
Agedairout 36 years;
SIC K.Venkafaramai:3,
' V' ___5Agcd abeut 34 years,
C T4. Sri K.Prasad,
Sis K.Vc:zkaiaramaiu,
Aged about 32 years,
5. Sm'£.K.Sa:aswathi,
D/o K.Venkata:ramalu,
Aged about 31 years,
( Petitioners 1 ta 5 are
residents ef Aravindanagar, '
Guntakal, I
A.P.State)
6. Smt.Lakshmidevi
@ Lakshminarasarszzza,
Wfo late M.Subbarayad31, A
Aged about 70 years, _ '_
Residing at Door n0.2:768,' V _ _
Nagarajapct, Sai "
Andhra 'V
7. Sri Kflezzugcipal; V. "
Sic late Venkamppa', .
Aged Laboait 60 years,'-
I-?;£:2si§i_it1gVvat D<$o:.NQ:;5,
. iv'Ward'ifi0,i'14,_ Rupanagudi
' Namppa ,fS1reet, Millcrpct,
._ '58':3v'1:03. .. PETITIONERS
(byisrg rsgcmtiananda, Adm
Lend Acquisitioa Oflieer
--c;.1m-- Assistant Commissioner,
"'Bella1'y 583 I01. .. RESPONDENT
é
(by Sn K.B.Adhyapak, Government Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Aj”tic.le’s 225_ and 22?’ of;
the Constitutionof India, praying f0 (West: the ‘-order fdateixi
16.3.2007, passed by the Respondentiiserein (LAQ,i’Bella:y)ie’*–.V
interest of justice (Annx-»G)’ ._and consequently ¥qe–.a.s.h–* the
endorsement dated 6.7.2007 ‘isst:ed hy._ the respondent
herein(Annexure-H). _ _
This petition coming’ Heating in ‘B’
Group this day, the Court;n;’1d.e tiie fo11’e.v£es’g: __
onnse”
nu-nu..—.-um-nmua—–.,
Hestd Counsel the petitioners and the respendent.
the tietitioners’ case that land bearing Survey
5 acres 65 cents of Bellary Gonali and
s¢§twi;ja.s9sx7, measuring 2 acres 85 cents in Bellary
to one K.Veekatappa, the fathenis-law of the first
iiipetitioeer and father of petitioners 6 and 7. The lands were
i acquired by the respondent in proceedings no.LAQ 93/”1973-74
for purposes of formation of underground drainage at Beilary.
fig
Alongwtih the gaetitionefs land, lend bearing
Biz, 397033, 901, 902, 903 etc., were also acquifed
same notification.
The Land Acquisition ofizccieladiwaraeiiR9_3.:ie0i..%
per acre. Not being satisfied “the same, ouvners ii
had sought reference of Court of Civil Sizdge,
Bellary in case :;os.LAc.-1.Ims,’efiié/90;73.79.F32, 35, 86 and
3:090. The aye'{e ;:ii¢9:ee9$n 30.9.1994. The
compenenfion. io Rs.45,000/- per acre.
5- , sieidiilorder, the beneficiary, namely, the
” TEn_gineeiiWili(iarnatal:zi Underground Water Scheme
1 Bellary had preferred writ petitions in WP
1997 and connected writ petifions before this
it Court ehellezzging the said order of the Court of the Civil ledge.
Cfliift had, on 22.2.2800, allowed the writ petitions and
“remitted the matter to the Civil Judge for reconsideration.
8
The remeinéeg land owners, whose lands taeqcireel
filed reference applications before the »Court of J_udge_V it ”
seeking enhancement in LAC
matters. The said applications–.rljW.ere allowed ~.5;g 15;7.2om
fixing the compensation ‘*~ . ._
Upon coating applications
being allowe’d;’p_««thie; application under
secfior.-‘ Act, l894( hereinafter
refer:’ed.to petitioners’ lands were covered
under thei4l’sar_ne._r’1otiI’ication. The respondent herein had,
iSS¥i€l=ldii”””a”linotice on 30.12.2005 “directing the
for an enquiry. The petitioners 6 and 7
sig31ifie’antli3}’ were not arraigned as parties to the proceedings.
Thereforie, the petitioners had filed an application seeking to
l”‘–iiri;plead themselves, which came to be allowed on 30.1.2006.
V ‘”iThe respondent had, thereafier, directed the ofiice to prepare an
award and had sent the same for approval to the Depzzty
é
Commissioner as on 13.2.2006. Os 16.3.2007,
respondent has rejected the application on thegroiiiidi ~ ..
not filed within a period of 90 days’ fr<3§ini}32ie'ii
namely, 30.12.3994. It is in
writ gefition is flied,
3. The counsez submit that as
is evident ..:_eiieniiits:’eiioresaid, the matters
having heed epon remand by this
Court, passed by the Principal Civil
Judge, Belieijy ovniéé» ivihich is one of the awards passed
to the”-vlandsy covered under the same notification,
‘wiierebyiheivpetitioners’ lands were aiso the subject matter of
the’_isame_inioii_iii;ation. Therefore, the peiitioziers, being of the
View th_ef:.t11ez*e was an error committed by the respondent, had
,,wh’pf¢£éi1T3d a review pegition. The same aiso having been
_,V_rejected, the petitioners wouid sebizeit thai the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Union cflndia and another vs.
6
remitted and a fresh award having been
scope for the petitioners to claim benefit £n a_!_a’t”er. Téée
respondent was, therefore, in errot; in f¢§eetiz;g’1’the_ ap’plieatioi.1
under seetien 28A ef the Aet, .un the Ag}.-pend ths:.£” L.
begin we run free} 30.22.1994;};.Vgmmpn§jng.ttjthe period of 90
days. Hence, there iS”«.t5£;ten’t e£j;e’.r”‘in;vvtti:enying the benefit of
Section 281-ktothe petitiaiierg V ” t K
Annexures G and H
are qtiashed.’ V Shall be afforded the benefit of
Seetion – Aceeirdtirigiy, the respondents are directed to
‘~ ree<3ns§der.the caseefthe petitioners.
Sd/…
Judge