Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 538 (ALL)

Vikas Jain v. State of U. P.

2020-02-18

B.K.NARAYANA, PRAKASH PADIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : B.K. Narayana, Prakash Padia, JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the claim raised under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1894") within time bound period. 3. The facts, in brief, as contained in the writ petition are that notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 were issued by the State Government in the Official Gazette on 11.2.2002 and 18.9.2002 respectively. During the acquisition proceedings, the father of the petitioner has died and the petitioner became owner of 1/3rd share of the property. The award under section 11 of the Act 1894 was published on 10.9.2003 and the land in question was acquired. 4. It is contended that although the petitioner has objected to the amount of compensations but the petitioner since belonging to the weaker section of the society and having lesser knowledge of the legal provisions with regard to the claim of the compensation, therefore, the petitioner could not object to the amount of the compensation granted to them. It is further contended that the award dated 10.9.2003 was challenged by certain land owners by way of Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as L.A.R.) under section 18 of Act, 1894 and one of the L.A.R. No. 586 of 2004. The aforesaid L.A.R. was decided by Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer/U.PP.A.E.V.P. Tribunal, Agra vide its judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 and determined as ` 1,350/- per square meters. Against the order of the reference, First Appeals were filed by the respondent No. 3 against the enhancement of the same. The aforesaid appeals were decided by this Court and an amount of compensation to the tune of ` 1,200/- Square Yards was fixed vide its judgment and order dated 23.4.2019. 5. It is contended that after coming to know regarding the aforesaid judgment passed in L.A.R. No. 586 of 2004, the petitioner submitted an application on 26.2.2018 before respondent No. 3 as per provisions contained under section 28-A of the Act, 1894 for re-determination of his compensation on the basis of the judgment and order dated 28.11.2017, but till date no decision has been taken. In the circumstances, a prayer is made in the present writ petition to issue a mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the application submitted by the petitioner under section 28-A of the Act, 1894 expeditiously. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself since no useful purpose would be served keeping this petition pending before this Court. 7. Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 is quoted below: "28-A. 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 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." 8. The object of section 28-A of the Act is certainly confer a right to make reference by persons who might not have made a reference under section 18 of the Act, 1894 to get the benefit of enhanced compensation which the other similarly situated persons got. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari AIR 1995 SC 2259 , observed as follows: "Section 28-A is, therefore, in the nature of a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people who are not able to take advantage of right of reference to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Act. In relation to beneficent legislation, the law is well-settled that while construing the provisions of such a legislation the Court should adopt a construction which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it. The provisions of section 28-A should, therefore, be construed keeping in view the object underlying the said provision." 9. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the land of the petitioner and others were acquired by the State Government by way of notification issued in the year 2002. Aggrieved against the quantum of compensation, certain persons filed a reference under section 18 of the Act, 1894. Ultimately in First Appeal No. 827 of 2017 (The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction II v. State of U.P. and others), the amount of compensation was fixed at the rate of ` 1,200/- per square yard. Since the application for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the petitioner under section 28-A of the Act, 1894 and the same is pending since 2018 before respondent No. 2. 10. In spite of the fact that considerable time has already lapsed, no decision has been taken by the respondent No. 2 on the application submitted by the petitioner under section 28-A of the Act, 1894. 11. 10. In spite of the fact that considerable time has already lapsed, no decision has been taken by the respondent No. 2 on the application submitted by the petitioner under section 28-A of the Act, 1894. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, liberty is given to the petitioner to submit an application before respondent No. 2 annexing the copy of the order dated 23.4.2019 passed in First Appeal No. 827 of 2017 (The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction II v. State of U.P. and others) along certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. If such an application is filed, a mandamus is issued to respondent No. 2 to pass final order on the L.A.R. No. of 2018 filed by the petitioner under section 28-A of the Act, 1894 expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months thereafter. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the respondent No. 2 will be free to pass appropriate order independently in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.