The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the expression 'Court' in Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') includes the appellate Court for the purpose of computing the period of three months for applying to the Collector for re-determination of the amount of compensation?

2. Petitioner No.2 is the nephew of petitioner No.1. Late Pentakoti Kondaiah son of Apanna is the father of petitioner No.1. The lands standing in the name of the father of petitioner No.1 and others and comprised in R.S.Nos.19/22, 19/23, 19/24, 19/33 and 19/34 of Mankollu Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District, were acquired under the provisions of the Act and different awards were passed on 04.02.1975, 19.02.1975 and 13.03.1975 by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Nuzividu. Some of the land owners covered by the said notifications got the issue relating to quantum of compensation referred to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gudivada, under Section 18 of the Act and registered as O.P.Nos.46/77 to 49/77 and 51/77 to 73/77. The said O.Ps., were disposed of by enhancing the compensation (neither of the parties gave the specific dates on which the O.Ps., were disposed of). Not being satisfied with the enhancement made by the reference Court, some of the awardees filed A.S.No.1370 of 1981 in this Court.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, PWD Scheme, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, it is averred that Pentakoti Kondaiah, father of petitioner No.1, filed A.S.No.494 of 1981 and in the said appeal some awardees filed cross-objections. It is further stated that in respect of Award No.4 of 1975 the father of petitioner No.1, Surisetti Venkanna and K. Lakshmana Rao were the awardees in respect of Ac.75.00 cents in R.S.No.19 as they have jointly purchased the property with equal shares, that his two major sons gave their consent for payment of compensation to their father, who, while not accepting the rates fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, has not adduced any evidence for awarding higher compensation and hence, the award was passed as proposed by the Land Acquisition officer. Later, the appeals filed by some of the awardees were disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 04.03.1986, wherein compensation was further enhanced. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, Section 28A of the Act was introduced by Amendment Act 68 of 1984, which provides for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the application filed by a person, who is aggrieved by the award of the Collector, but has not made an application to him to re-determine the compensation on the basis of the award of the Court passed in respect of other lands covered by the same notifications, if such an application is filed within three months from the date of the award of the Court.

4. The petitioners pleaded that on coming to know about the enhancement of compensation by this Court in A.S.Nos.366 and 367 of 1981 and batch, they applied for certified copy of the orders on 05.11.1988 and on receipt of the same on 07.11.1988, they made representations on 28.11.1988 to the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Machilipatnam and that the said representations were received by him on 01.12.1988. The petitioners further claimed that they made another representation on 16.09.1989 for re-determination of compensation. They further pleaded that the Special Tahsildar, vide endorsement dated 12.04.1994, rejected the applications of some of the applicants, that feeling aggrieved by the said endorsement, Sri R.V.S. Jagan Mohan Rao and four others filed WP.No.22661 of 1994 in this Court, that as the petitioners did not get any reply from the Special Tahsildar, they did not file a similar writ petition. The petitioners further pleaded that they have also made a representation on 19.02.2004, wherein they brought to the notice of the Special Tahsildar about the Judgment of the Fi