- (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:
"This appeal suit was filed against the award of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in O.P. No.45/99, dt.30-9-1999, with an application seeking condonation of delay of 995 days in preferring the appeal. The reason given for the delay in filing this appeal is that the Kartha of the family did not prefer appeal against the award of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. We can understand that the reason for the immediate progress in filing this appeal is the order of a Division Bench of this court allowing the appeals filed by the other claimants and enhancing the compensation by its order dated 13-8-2002 in A.S. No.616 of 2000 and batch. As per the said orders of a Division Bench of this Court dated 13-8-2002, the appellants need not file this appeal and they can straightaway approach the District Collector, under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, to pay the enhanced compensation on par with the appellants in AS No.616 of 2000 and batch. Hence, we direct the appellants, to approach the Collector by filing application within the time stipulated in Section 28-A of the Act. The Registry is directed to return the papers and to issue a certificate for claiming refund of the court fee paid by the appellants. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed."
which is the subject matter of CRP No.6089/2002. Similarly other claimants also filed appeals in AS (SR) No.70358 and 70350 of 2002 with applications to condone the delay in preferring the appeals. In view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court, as referred to above, claimants in those appeals withdrew the applications filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeals. Thereafter, the claimants filed applications through their advocates under Sec.28-A of the Act for redetermination of the compensation awarded under Award No.2/91 dt.15-4-1991 in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in A.S. No.616/2000 and batch dt.13-8-2002. The said applications were rejected as not maintainable. Questioning the same, the present revision petitions are filed.
(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.