Guduchutlu Lalaiah vs The Land Acquisition Officer, (Spl. Tahsildar) (L.A.)

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking re-determination of the amount of compensation by invoking the provisions contained Under Section. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''). By memo in Re. No. A2-25/84, dated 22-1-1992 the respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner on die ground that the amount of compensation was received by the petitioner without protest. In other respects the application filed by the petitioner before the respondent u/s 28-A of the Act is found to be in order. But the reasons given by the respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for redetermination of the amount of compensation under the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act is neither relevant nor sustainable. For invocation of Section 28-A of the Act, it does not matter whether the petitioner received the amount of compensation under protest or without protest. The contention of the respondent that the amount was received without protest, which can only be raised when a reference was sought to be made u/s 18 of the Act, has got no relevance insofar as Section 28-A of the Act is concerned. The provisions of Section 28-A of the Act are inserted by the Amending Act 68 of 1984 on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As the reasons given by the respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the redetermination of the amount of compensation are not tenable, I set aside the impugned order dated 22-1-1992 passed by the respondent and direct him to consider the application of the petitioner for re-determination of the amount of compensation by invoking the provisions as contained u/s 28-A of the Act. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall furnish a copy of the judgment on which reliance is placed before the respondent.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.