Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2588 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Parsani Devi

2010-09-08

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JASBIR SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- This order will dispose of CWP No. 11450 of 1989 titled as State of Haryana vs. Smt. Parsani Devi and others and CWP No. 11451 of 1989 titled as State of Haryana vs. Sh. Harbhajan Singh and others. Facts are being mentioned from CWP No. 11450 of 1989. 2. These writ petitions have been filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 20.12.1988, vide which prayer of the private respondents to get the enhanced compensation in terms of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was accepted. 3. It is apparent from the records that vide notification dated 19.07.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 17.233 Acres was proposed to be acquired for a public purpose namely for construction of Pinjokhra Minor in village Patti Rangran, Tehsil and District Ambala. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 02.08.1982. The Land Acquisition Collector announced Award on 28.10.1982. 4. The private respondents were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them. They filed application under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, which was accepted by the District Judge on 23.10.1984. Thereafter, the private respondents did not lay any challenge to the order passed. However, other land owners went in appeal and this Court further enhanced the compensation amount when deciding RFA No. 258 of 1985 on 02.02.1987. Against that order an L.P.A. was filed by the State, which was dismissed. The private respondents then filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act, which was accepted on 20.12.1988. Hence, this writ petition. 5. While making reference to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act, counsel for the petitioner states that once a land owner has filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, it is not open to that land owner to claim enhanced compensation by invoking the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. 6. We feel that objection raised is perfectly justified. The provisions of Section 28-A of the Act read thus:- “28A. 6. We feel that objection raised is perfectly justified. The provisions of Section 28-A of the Act read thus:- “28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.-(1) Wherein 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. 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. (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. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under subsection (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 Section 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18.” 7. Reading of the above provisions clearly indicates that the benefit has been extended to those land owners, who had not filed any application under Section 18 of the Act. A similar controversy came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Pardeep Kumari and others, (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 736 and it was specifically held that benefit of Section 28-A of the Act will enure in favour of a land owner, who had not moved any application under Section 18 of the Act. 8. Sh. 8. Sh. Gupta has failed to show anything contrary to it. 9. In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 20.12.1988 (P-4) passed by respondent No. 3 stands quashed. ------------