Sk. Masum Saheb, Vs The State of A.P

SK. MASUM SAHEB,, S/O.NABI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.VIGNESWARA COLONY, PODALAKUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P.

¶10

SK. CHAND BEE,, W/O.LATE SK. MABU SAHEB AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. OBULAYAPALLI VILLAGE. RAPUR MANDAL. SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶11

KATTIBOINA SIDDAIAH,, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. OBULAYAPALLI VILLAGE, RAPURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, MULAPETA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P.

¶17

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, RAPUR AT NELLORE UNIT, MULAPETA, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not disposing the 28-A Applications dt. 15.07.2025 made by the petitioners for re-determination of compensation to their acquired pomegranates trees on the Award amount in Award No.2/1990-91 dt.23.03.1991 as enhanced in LAAS No.72/2022 dt.01.05.2025 is as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and

¶20

2

¶21

violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to dispose of 28-A Applications dt. 15.07.2025 made by the petitioners by re-determining the compensation to the acquired pomegranates trees in terms of the order and decree passed by this Hon'ble Court in LAAS No.72/2022 dt.01.05.2025 pending before the 3 respondent forthwith IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be direct the respondents to dispose of 28-A Applications dt. 15.07.2025 made by the petitioners by redetermining the compensation to the acquired pomegranates trees in terms of the order and decree passed by this Hon‟bie Court in LAAS No.72/2022 di.01.05.2025 pending before the 3 respondent pending Writ Petition in this Hon‟bie Court Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶23

1.S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶26

2.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD

¶27

3

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25103 of 2025

¶29

ORDER:-

¶30

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶31

“… to issue Writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not disposing the 28-A Applications dt.15.07.2025 made by the petitioners for re-determination of compensation to their acquired pomegranates trees on the Award amount in Award No.2/1990-91 dt.23.03.1991 as enhanced in LAAS.No.72/2022 dt.01.05.2025 is as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to dispose of 28-A Applications dt.15.07.2025 made by the petitioners by re-determining the compensation to the acquired pomegranates trees in terms of the order and decree passed by this Hon'ble Court in LAAS No.72/2022 dt.01.05.2025 pending before the 3^rd respondent forthwith and pass such other order.…”

¶32

Petitioners lands were acquired by respondent Nos.3 and 4,

¶33

along with tress and structures attached thereon, in the year 1991 for the purpose of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project. Petitioners have not sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter for short referred as „the Act‟), against the Award No.2/1990-91 and the compensation was received on protest and some of the awardees have sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was registered as L.A.O.P.No.61 of 1991, on the file learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, and the same was allowed on 30.11.2001. Thereafter, assailing the same LAAS.No.72 of 2022 has been preferred and the same was disposed on 01.05.2025 and the

¶34

4

¶35

petitioners were legally advised to avail the remedy to file an application under Section 28A of the Act, for re-determination of compensation to the acquired land, structures, including trees.

¶36

Thereafter, petitioners have filed applications dated 15.07.2025 accordingly under Section 28A of the Act, before the respondent No.4The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) seeking for redetermination of compensation on par with the other awardees, whose compensation has been enhanced in LAAS.No.72 of 2022 dated 01.05.2025. As the judgment passed in LAAS.No.72 of 2022 attained finality, the 4^th respondent be directed to dispose the applications dated 15.07.2025 filed under section 28A of the Act and to direct to enhance the compensation, as there is no impediment for respondents.

¶37

Heard Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

¶38

Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the petitioners have filed applications dated 15.07.2025, under Section 28A of the Act before respondent No.4-The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), requesting a re-determination of compensation to be consistent with other awardees whose compensation was increased in LAAS.No.72 of 2022 dated 01.05.2025 and requested to direct the 4^th

¶39

5

¶40

respondent to address the applications filed under Section 28A of the

¶41

Act and to enhance the compensation.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader does not oppose the request made by the writ petitioners significantly and would request this Court to grant reasonable time to address the petitioners applications.

¶43

Section 28A [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 19 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984)] is extracted for effective disposal of the writ petition:

¶44

“28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court:

¶45

(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:

¶46

Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

¶47

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.

¶48

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections

¶49

6

¶50

18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18…”

¶51

The Hon‟ble Apex court in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi¹ ,

¶52

answering the reference held in the following:

¶53

“Coming to the second question for reference the receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application under Section 28-A. If a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collectors with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other land owner's application for reference is answered by the reference Court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act.”

¶54

Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to examine and address the applications dated 15.07.2025, filed by petitioners under Section 28A of the Act, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view of the order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court referred supra and judgment in LAAS.No.72 of 2022 and communicate the decision to the petitioners within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶56

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 07.10.2025 KBN

¶57

1 (2002) 7 SCC 273

Sk. Masum Saheb, v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Masum Saheb, v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naradasu Banaramma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shamabegum Vs the State of Ap

Seelam Santha Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Saidamma @ Saida Bi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Jampani Sreenivasa Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Murala Rathnaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh