Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2980 (ALL)

RAJAN GARG v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-09-18

ARUN TANDON, ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Application of the petitioner filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1894’) has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Awas Meerut/Special Land Acquisition Officer, which is assailed in the present writ petition. 2. It appears that certain land belonging to the petitioner had been acquired for establishing of a residential housing colony by the respondent Housing Board. An award was made but considering the interse dispute between the parties with regard to entitlement to receive compensation, a reference under Section 30 of the Act of 1984 was made, which came to be decided by the Court in L.A.R. No. 20 of 1987 on 8.3.1989. It is admitted that the amount of compensation payable under the award was received by the petitioner’s mother on 30.10.1989. It further appears that in the context of reference made under Section 18 of the Act, at the instance of other tenure-holders, the reference Court enhanced the compensation determined by the Collector. The determination so made by the reference Court was assailed by the Housing Board by filing appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1894, which came to be dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, Housing Board challenged the judgment of this Court by filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed on 2.11.2012. It is thereafter that an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 has been filed by the petitioner, seeking enhanced compensation, on the basis of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 2.11.2012. This application of the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 dated 28.1.2013 appears to have been got received in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 29.1.2013, which has been rejected by the order under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since determination of compensation has attained finality with dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2.11.2012, therefore, the filing of reference within three months thereafter was within limitation and could not have been rejected. 4. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since determination of compensation has attained finality with dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2.11.2012, therefore, the filing of reference within three months thereafter was within limitation and could not have been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board, on the other hand, submits that the application under Section 28-A of the Act is maintainable against an award made by the Court under part III of the Act of 1894 within a period of three months from the award of the reference Court and no application is maintainable thereafter, on the basis of judgment of the High Court in appeal under Section 54 of the Act, or on the basis of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Hansoli Devi and others, (2010) 15 SCC 483. 5. Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 provides for re-determination of the amount of compensation, on the basis of an award of the Court. Section 28-A of the Act reads as under : “28A. Re-determination 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, 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 sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, required 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.” 6. Perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly goes to show that any claim for re-determination of the amount of compensation has to be based upon an award made under this part. Section 28-A of the Act falls in part III of the Act of 1894, which starts from Section 18 and extends upto Section 28-A. From the perusal of the provision itself, it is clear that an application for re-determination under Section 28-A can be made only within the period of limitation contemplated in the statute itself i.e. three months from the date of award made by the reference Court. Any subsequent determination by the High Court under Section 54 of the Act or in appeal under part VIII of the Act would not give any cause for maintaining an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894. Law in this regard has been settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (supra), wherein following observations have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 5 of its judgment: “5. On a careful consideration of the point raised on behalf of the appellants and in the light of the decision in Jose Antonio1 it has to be necessarily held against the claimants that the limitation of three months for making an application for re-determination of the compensation as envisaged under Section 28-A of the Act has to be computed from the date of the award of the Reference Court on the basis of which re-determination is sought, and not the order of the appellate Court dealing with the appeal against the award of the Reference Court (vide p.3 of the decision at p.749). The question of this issue, in our view, has been finally settled by this Court in the above decision rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court. Applying the said decision, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed before the High Court shall stand dismissed. No costs.” 7. In view of the proposition of law, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are satisfied that no cause had arisen to the petitioner to make an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894, on the basis of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 2.11.2012. The rejection of application by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality. 8. The writ petition consequently fails and is dismissed.