JUDGMENT Whether a person applied for a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and obtained a right to receive the compensation or any part thereof pursuant thereto, is debarred from applying for a reference under section 28A for re-determination of compensation for that reason even when he had not applied for enhancement of compensation under section 18, of the Act? It is the rejection of Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act'), as per Ext.P4, based on the misconception of law by the authorities on the aforesaid question that constrained the petitioners to approach this Court. Earlier, an extent of 0.0640 hectare of land was acquired for the purpose of establishing the Industrial Growth Centre, Panakkad in Malappuram District from the father of the petitioners along with lands belonging to some others. Thereafter, an award for an amount of Rs.79,444/- under section 11 of the Act was passed in respect of the said land. Since there arose a dispute regarding the apportionment the parties sought for a reference under section 30 of the Act and consequently the matter was referred before the civil court in terms of the Act. The reference was registered and numbered as L A R No.142/1998. Ext.P1 is the judgment in that reference dated 29.10.2002. Immediately, thereafter certain land owners whose lands were also acquired under the same notification and who were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded sought for reference under section 18 of the Act and later, upon such reference Ext.P2 award was passed. Ext.P2 is dated 13.1.2012. Based on Ext.P2 award dated 13.1.2012 the petitioners sought for redetermination of the amount of compensation under section 28A of the Act as per Ext.P3 dated 30.3.2012. It is that application which was rejected as per Ext.P4 by the second respondent assigning the reason that since the matter was already considered in L A R NO.142/1998 for the purpose of reference under Section 30 of the Act no application for reference under section 28A would lie. It is seeking quashment of Ext.P4 and issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refer Ext.P3 application that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is seeking quashment of Ext.P4 and issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refer Ext.P3 application that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Obviously, Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P4 assigning the reason that in respect of the land in question earlier, a reference under section 30 of the Act was made and it culminated in Ext.P1 judgment and as the matter was considered for the said purpose another application for redetermination of the compensation in respect of the same property under section 28A would not lie. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said reason assigned in Ext.P4 is unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan V State of Maharashtra reported in 2014(1) KLT 22(SC). In fact, in that decision the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the scope of section 18 vis-a-vis section 30 of the Act. After setting out the said provisions the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:- "A cursory glance of the provisions of sections 18 and 30 of the Act, may suggest that there is some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of compensation to the Court. But, a closer scrutiny would indicate that the two Sections of the Act operate in entirely different circumstances. While S.18 applies to situations where the apportionment made in the Award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, S.30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the Court under S.30 of the Act. The other is to relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right to receive compensation under the Award would crystallize after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. It is only thereafter that a reference under S.18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the Court in the reference under S.30 or in the civil suit, as may be." (emphasis added) 4. It is only thereafter that a reference under S.18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the Court in the reference under S.30 or in the civil suit, as may be." (emphasis added) 4. In the light of the aforesaid decision in Madan's case (supra) it is evident that section 30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of the conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the Court under section 30 of the Act. A perusal of section 28A would reveal that it applies in an entirely different circumstance. For convenient sake and for comparing sake it is only apposite to set the provisions under sections 28A and 30 of Act:- "28A. Redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.- (1) Where in 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, not withstanding 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-determine 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. (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 sub-section (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 Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18." "30. Dispute as to apportionment.- When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court." 5. In the light of the decision in Madan's case (supra) there is room for doubt as to when section 30 of the Act operates. The said decision also settled the position that the right to receive compensation or part thereof under an award would crystallise after apportionment is made in his favour under section 30 of the Act and it is only thereafter that a reference under section 18 of the Act for enhanced compensation could be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the Court in the reference or in the civil suit, as the case may be. If that be so, if such a person had not made an application to the Collector under section 18 of the Act certainly, he is entitled in law to seek for re-determination of the amount of compensation based on award of the Court subject to satisfaction of all the conditions thereunder. Redetermination under section 28A is essentially sought for with a view to have compensation in excess of the compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11 of the Act. Redetermination under section 28A is essentially sought for with a view to have compensation in excess of the compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11 of the Act. On the other hand, under section 30 of the Act what is to be decided is the very entitlement to receive the amount of compensation settled under section 11 of the Act or any part thereof by the Collector or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, owing to dispute as to apportionment. Thus it is evident that Sections 28A and 30 of the Act operate entirely in different circumstances. In short, under section 30 the very entitlement to receive compensation based on the acquisition of a particular piece of land is to be decided owing to conflicting claims/dispute and section 28A is an opportunity available to an awardee under section 11 of the Act who failed to seek a reference of his objection to the amount of compensation under section 18 of the Act, to seek for a redetermination of the amount of compensation based on an award of the Court in respect of any other land covered by the same notification under section 4(1) of the Act , if there is an increase. In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 1532 the Hon'ble Apex Court made it clear that the remedy under section 28A on the basis of an award of the court in respect of other lands covered by the same acquisition notification, if there is an increase, is available to a person who failed to make an application for reference within the time prescribed in proviso to section 18(2) of the Act. In such circumstances the right available to a person under section 18 of the Act even after seeking a reference under section 30 of the Act in the light of the provisions of the Act as held in Madan's case (supra) should be available to a person eligible to apply for reference under section 28A of the Act. In such circumstances the right available to a person under section 18 of the Act even after seeking a reference under section 30 of the Act in the light of the provisions of the Act as held in Madan's case (supra) should be available to a person eligible to apply for reference under section 28A of the Act. In otherwords, the dictum in Madan's case (supra) will squarely apply to such a person and hence Ext.P4 declining to consider Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioners under section 28A to redetermine the amount of compensation based on Ext.P2 award solely because of earlier reference under section 30 of the Act at the instance of the parties can only be an order passed on a total misconception of law. There is no case that they had earlier sought for a reference for enhancement of compensation in respect of the property in question and obtained increase in compensation or that the application under section 28A was filed beyond the period of limitations. Therefore, Ext.P4 cannot be sustained and hence it is set aside. There will be a consequential direction to the second respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application and consider the same taking into account the observations made in the judgment and in accordance with law. It shall be done expeditiously and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2015 (1) KLT 505 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. VADAKKEVEETTIL AHAMMED RASHEED & ORS. - PETITIONER Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM & ORS. - RESPONDENTS W.P.(C) No. 7009 of 2014 Decided On : 21.5.2014 Cases Referred : Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1532 Madan V. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2014(1) KLT 22(SC) Advocate Appeared : For the Appellant : SRI. PHILIP J. VETTICKATTU, SRI. B. PREMNATH. For the Respondent : GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVEENDRAN. PHILIP J. VETTICKATTU, SRI. B. PREMNATH. For the Respondent : GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVEENDRAN. JUDGMENT Whether a person applied for a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and obtained a right to receive the compensation or any part thereof pursuant thereto, is debarred from applying for a reference under section 28A for re-determination of compensation for that reason even when he had not applied for enhancement of compensation under section 18, of the Act? It is the rejection of Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act'), as per Ext.P4, based on the misconception of law by the authorities on the aforesaid question that constrained the petitioners to approach this Court. Earlier, an extent of 0.0640 hectare of land was acquired for the purpose of establishing the Industrial Growth Centre, Panakkad in Malappuram District from the father of the petitioners along with lands belonging to some others. Thereafter, an award for an amount of Rs.79,444/- under section 11 of the Act was passed in respect of the said land. Since there arose a dispute regarding the apportionment the parties sought for a reference under section 30 of the Act and consequently the matter was referred before the civil court in terms of the Act. The reference was registered and numbered as L A R No.142/1998. Ext.P1 is the judgment in that reference dated 29.10.2002. Immediately, thereafter certain land owners whose lands were also acquired under the same notification and who were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded sought for reference under section 18 of the Act and later, upon such reference Ext.P2 award was passed. Ext.P2 is dated 13.1.2012. Based on Ext.P2 award dated 13.1.2012 the petitioners sought for redetermination of the amount of compensation under section 28A of the Act as per Ext.P3 dated 30.3.2012. It is that application which was rejected as per Ext.P4 by the second respondent assigning the reason that since the matter was already considered in L A R NO.142/1998 for the purpose of reference under Section 30 of the Act no application for reference under section 28A would lie. It is seeking quashment of Ext.P4 and issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refer Ext.P3 application that this writ petition has been filed. 2. It is seeking quashment of Ext.P4 and issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refer Ext.P3 application that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Obviously, Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P4 assigning the reason that in respect of the land in question earlier, a reference under section 30 of the Act was made and it culminated in Ext.P1 judgment and as the matter was considered for the said purpose another application for redetermination of the compensation in respect of the same property under section 28A would not lie. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said reason assigned in Ext.P4 is unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan V State of Maharashtra reported in 2014(1) KLT 22(SC). In fact, in that decision the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the scope of section 18 vis-a-vis section 30 of the Act. After setting out the said provisions the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:- "A cursory glance of the provisions of sections 18 and 30 of the Act, may suggest that there is some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of compensation to the Court. But, a closer scrutiny would indicate that the two Sections of the Act operate in entirely different circumstances. While S.18 applies to situations where the apportionment made in the Award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, S.30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the Court under S.30 of the Act. The other is to relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right to receive compensation under the Award would crystallize after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. It is only thereafter that a reference under S.18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the Court in the reference under S.30 or in the civil suit, as may be." (emphasis added) 4. It is only thereafter that a reference under S.18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the Court in the reference under S.30 or in the civil suit, as may be." (emphasis added) 4. In the light of the aforesaid decision in Madan's case (supra) it is evident that section 30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of the conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the Court under section 30 of the Act. A perusal of section 28A would reveal that it applies in an entirely different circumstance. For convenient sake and for comparing sake it is only apposite to set the provisions under sections 28A and 30 of Act:- "28A. Redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.- (1) Where in 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, not withstanding 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-determine 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. (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 sub-section (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 Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18." "30. Dispute as to apportionment.- When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court." 5. In the light of the decision in Madan's case (supra) there is room for doubt as to when section 30 of the Act operates. The said decision also settled the position that the right to receive compensation or part thereof under an award would crystallise after apportionment is made in his favour under section 30 of the Act and it is only thereafter that a reference under section 18 of the Act for enhanced compensation could be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the Court in the reference or in the civil suit, as the case may be. If that be so, if such a person had not made an application to the Collector under section 18 of the Act certainly, he is entitled in law to seek for re-determination of the amount of compensation based on award of the Court subject to satisfaction of all the conditions thereunder. Redetermination under section 28A is essentially sought for with a view to have compensation in excess of the compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11 of the Act. Redetermination under section 28A is essentially sought for with a view to have compensation in excess of the compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11 of the Act. On the other hand, under section 30 of the Act what is to be decided is the very entitlement to receive the amount of compensation settled under section 11 of the Act or any part thereof by the Collector or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, owing to dispute as to apportionment. Thus it is evident that Sections 28A and 30 of the Act operate entirely in different circumstances. In short, under section 30 the very entitlement to receive compensation based on the acquisition of a particular piece of land is to be decided owing to conflicting claims/dispute and section 28A is an opportunity available to an awardee under section 11 of the Act who failed to seek a reference of his objection to the amount of compensation under section 18 of the Act, to seek for a redetermination of the amount of compensation based on an award of the Court in respect of any other land covered by the same notification under section 4(1) of the Act , if there is an increase. In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 1532 the Hon'ble Apex Court made it clear that the remedy under section 28A on the basis of an award of the court in respect of other lands covered by the same acquisition notification, if there is an increase, is available to a person who failed to make an application for reference within the time prescribed in proviso to section 18(2) of the Act. In such circumstances the right available to a person under section 18 of the Act even after seeking a reference under section 30 of the Act in the light of the provisions of the Act as held in Madan's case (supra) should be available to a person eligible to apply for reference under section 28A of the Act. In such circumstances the right available to a person under section 18 of the Act even after seeking a reference under section 30 of the Act in the light of the provisions of the Act as held in Madan's case (supra) should be available to a person eligible to apply for reference under section 28A of the Act. In otherwords, the dictum in Madan's case (supra) will squarely apply to such a person and hence Ext.P4 declining to consider Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioners under section 28A to redetermine the amount of compensation based on Ext.P2 award solely because of earlier reference under section 30 of the Act at the instance of the parties can only be an order passed on a total misconception of law. There is no case that they had earlier sought for a reference for enhancement of compensation in respect of the property in question and obtained increase in compensation or that the application under section 28A was filed beyond the period of limitations. Therefore, Ext.P4 cannot be sustained and hence it is set aside. There will be a consequential direction to the second respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application and consider the same taking into account the observations made in the judgment and in accordance with law. It shall be done expeditiously and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.