JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

This intra-Court appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 21.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.16034 of 2023. By the said order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants herein to re-determine the compensation payable to the respondents/writ petitioners by taking into consideration the compensation fixed by the order dated 05.02.2018 in L.A.O.P.No.32 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, and to pay the differential compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2. We have heard Mr. P. Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, appearing for the appellants, and Mr. G. Chandan Raaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners. Both sides have filed written submissions along with a compilation of authorities, which we have considered together with the record of the writ petition and the material placed before us.

3. The controversy in the present case turns on a specific question. Fifty-five persons who lost their residential houses on account of an acquisition made in the years 2002 and 2003 applied for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) within the time prescribed by the statute. Their applications, however, were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the sole ground that they had received the compensation without protest. Ten other awardees under the very same award obtained enhanced compensation in L.A.O.P.No.32 of 2011. The petitioners thereafter sought re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act on the basis of such enhancement. The question that, therefore, arises for our consideration is whether their applications can be rejected on the ground that it is barred by the period of limitation prescribed by Section 28-A of the Act.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

4. The residential houses and lands situated within the village limits of Hathini, Dahegaon Mandal, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad District (erstwhile Adilabad District) came to be acquired for submergence under the P.P. Rao Project. The requisition was made by the Executive Engineer, I & CAD, P.P. Rao Project Division, Bellampally, by letter No.BD/297/M dated 15.01.2002, for acquisition of the abadi (houses) of Hathini village. On the report of the then Mandal Revenue Officer and the Assistant Director (S&LR), Adilabad, the draft notification was approved by the District Collector, Adilabad, was issued in Gazette No.9/2001-1 dated 06.03.2002 and was published on 11.03.2002. The declaration was published simultaneously on the same day.

5. On completion of the process, the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Asifabad passed Award No.B/628/2002 dated 26.05.2003 in respect of 532 structures. The compensation determined thereunder was confined to the estimated value furnished by the engineering authority. It is the specific case of the writ petitioners that the two other components of compensation, namely solatium and additional market value, were omitted altogether, and that the award was to that extent contrary to the mandate of Section 23 of the Act.

6. Within six weeks of the award, on 05.07.2003, the writ petitioners submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act seeking a reference to the competent civil Court for proper determination of compensation. Those applications were rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer by Memo No.B/628/2002 dated 01.08.2003, on the ground that the compensation amount had not been received “under protest”.

7. Some of the awardees covered by the same award, Sri Tallapally Linga Rao and nine others, were, however, referred to the civil Court. That reference was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.32 of 2011 on the file o