Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 252 (PNJ)

Kanta Yadav v. State of Haryana

2017-01-31

ARUN PALLI

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Arun Palli, J.: (Oral) - The claimant/landowner is in appeal against the award dated 01.11.2014, rendered by the Reference Court, vide which her claim petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), was dismissed being barred by time. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out as to how the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court was either contrary to the record or suffered from any material illegality. Faced with this situation, he submits that he be permitted to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to the appellant to resort to the remedy envisaged under Section 28-A of the Act, for re-determination of compensation in terms of the award in question, dated 01.11.2014. In support of his prayer he relies upon an order and judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ompal v. State of Haryana and others [RFA No. 6990 of 2013 (O&M), decided on 01.07.2015] and other connected matters. 3. The prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant is not opposed by learned State counsel. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Indisputably, after the award in question, i.e. dated 01.11.2014, was rendered by the Reference Court, the appellant could always invoke the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act and seek re-determination of compensation in terms of the impugned award itself. However, she filed the present appeal in good faith, which she pursued, thus for, bonafidely. Needless to assert that even if the objections of the appellant, under Section 18 of the Act, were dismissed on the ground of delay that would not bar her right to seek re-determination of compensation provided the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act are satisfied. [see Union of India v. Smt. Hansoli Devi, 2002 (7) SCC 273 ] 6. In Ompal’s case (supra), the claimant/landowner had sought re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. And, the Collector vide an award under Section 28-A(2) re-determined the compensation. However, rather than taking recourse to the provisions of Section 28-A(3) of the Act, thereafter, the claimant preferred an appeal before this Court, under Section 54 of the Act. In Ompal’s case (supra), the claimant/landowner had sought re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. And, the Collector vide an award under Section 28-A(2) re-determined the compensation. However, rather than taking recourse to the provisions of Section 28-A(3) of the Act, thereafter, the claimant preferred an appeal before this Court, under Section 54 of the Act. Although, this Court arrived at a conclusion that the appeal before this Court, under Section 54 of the Act, was not maintainable, and as the only remedy available to the appellant lay under Section 28-A(3), but granted opportunity to the claimant therein to move the Collector, under Section 28-A(3) of the Act within a specified time. Para Nos. 16, 17, 19 and 20 of the judgment in Ompal’s case (supra) reads thus:- “16. The aforesaid provisions make it crystal clear thatan appeal to this court lies only against the award or a part ofthe award passed by the court and not the Collector. In thepresent set of appeals, the landowners have filed the sameimpugning the award of the Collector passed under Section 28A(2) of the Act, which is not appealable under Section 54 ofthe Act. In fact, the remedy against the same has been clearlyprovided in Section 28A(3) of the Act. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the landownersthat going to the Reference Court would be an exercise in futileas the Collector had already awarded the compensation on thebasis of the award of the Reference Court is merely to benoticed and rejected. Once a specific procedure has beenprovided, the same deserved to be followed. Remedy of appealis a creation of statute, unless it is specifically provided that theorder/award cannot be impugned before the Court. Referencecan be made to the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) v. Raj Narain and another, (1975)2 SCC 159 and Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v.M/s Swaraj Developers and others, AIR 2003 SC 2434 . XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XXX XXX 19. Accordingly, the question is answered in terms thatagainst an award of the Collector passed under Section 28A ofthe Act, appeal is not maintainable before this court as theremedy against the same is available under Section 28A(3) ofthe Act by filing an application to the Collector seekingreference of dispute to the Court. 20. Accordingly, the question is answered in terms thatagainst an award of the Collector passed under Section 28A ofthe Act, appeal is not maintainable before this court as theremedy against the same is available under Section 28A(3) ofthe Act by filing an application to the Collector seekingreference of dispute to the Court. 20. As the landowners in the present case being illadvised, instead of filing application to the Collector forreferring the matter to the court for re-fixation ofcompensation, had approached this court taking a plea thatother matters seeking enhancement of compensation arepending before this court, in my opinion, keeping in view theinterest of the landowners, they need to be given an opportunityto file applications before the Collector under Section 28A(3) ofthe Act within four weeks from today.” 7. Needless to assert that the appellant is not a litigant by choice but owing to compulsory acquisition of her holding. And, she would hardly gain anything by delaying her own cause. Apparently, she is a victim of circumstances for multiple reasons, i.e. poverty, rural background, lack of timely and appropriate legal advise. The very purport and intent of the Land Acquisition Act is to award just and fair compensation to the landowners. Concededly, the co-landowners have been awarded the enhanced compensation. 8. In conspectus of the above, and in the wake of pertinent facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant is permitted to withdraw this appeal, with liberty to move the Collector, under Section 28-A of the Act, within six weeks from today. And, in the event any such application is moved within the specified time, the same shall be decided on merits.