B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners owned agricultural land in gat No. 563 of village Ruibhar and land admeasuring 7. 17 hectares came to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for short) for the ruibhar Project in Osmanabad district. Award was passed under section 11 of the act and they received the compensation. They had not applied under section 18 of the Act for reference for enhancement of compensation. Land Acquisition reference No. 241 of 1991 filed by Manik s/o Babarao Tirthkar came to be decided by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Osmanabad on 19th october, 1993 and taking support of the said award, the petitioners approached the Collector and submitted a claim on 10th May, 1994 under section 28a of the act claiming that they were covered by the same verification and award as the claimant in L. A. R. No. 241 of 1991. This application was not decided for quite some time and, therefore, they approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4474 of 1996 which came to be decided by order dated 21st September, 1996 with directions to the Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the application of the petitioners within four months. The petitioners received notice dated 21st January, 1997 from the Land Acquisition Officer informing, that the notification under section 4 of the Act was different in L. A. R. No. 241 of 1991 and the acquisition of the petitioners land was not covered by the same notification. The application filed under section 28a of the Act was accordingly disposed of. A communication dated 29th January, 1997 came to be addressed by the Collector, Osmanabad to the Special Land Acquisition Officer pointing out that the notification under section 4 of the Act, in respect of the land covered by l. A. R. No. 241 of 1991, was different from the notification by which the petitioners land was acquired and the application filed by the petitioners was time barred. A copy of the said communication was also forwarded to the petitioners by the Special Land Acquisition Officer subsequently. Being aggrieved by these two communications the petitioners approached in the second round, to this court.

( 2 ) SHRI Madkholkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the threshold submitted that the averments made by the petitioners have not been controverted by the respondent-State authorities by filing a return and, therefore, this Court is required to proceed on the basis that the said averments have been admitted by them. In support of this argument he relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Naseem Bano vs. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1993 SC 2592. He then referred to the order passed by this Court while deciding writ petition No. 4474 of 1996 and submitted that when the Collector was specifically directed to decide the application submitted by the petitioners, the decision communicated on or about 21st January, 1997 and 29th January, 1997 cannot be treated to be legal and valid and moreso because the petitioners were not offered an opportunity of hearing before the said decision was communicated. The respondents have, thus, committed contempt of the order passed by this court on 21st September, 1996 in writ petition No 4474 of 1996 and, in any case, the decision so communicated has civil consequences and principles of natural justice were required to be followed by the Collector while deciding the petitioners application. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for remand of the application submitted under section 28a of the Act for being heard afresh after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

( 3 ) THOUGH the return has not been filed on behalf of the Collector and the special Land Acquisition Officer, the original record has been submitted before us and we have noted from the same that the petitioners land located in Gat No. 563 came to be acquired pursuant to the notification dated 18th June, 1979 issued under section 4 of the Act and th