Bijender And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

The present order shall dispose of 4 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 37615, 37631, 37651 and 37672 of 2019. The prayer in the present writ petitions filed under Articles 226/2227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of the order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2.

The benefit of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') has been denied on the ground that the same was filed on the basis of the judgment passed in RFA-266-2012 titled Joginder Singh Tokash v. State of Haryana.

Counsel at the outset very fairly has conceded that challenge to the order of even date made by other landowners has been repelled while dismissing writ petition i.e. CWP No. 35666 of 2019 'Sombir v. State of Haryana' decided on 09.12.2019. The relevant portion of the said order read as under:-

"Counsel for the petitioner has mainly tried to convince this Court that the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 114, would not be applicable, which argument, this Court is not in agreement with. The specific issue was that enhancement by this Court and the Supreme Court, would not entitle the landowners to file a petition under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the principle of law was clearly culled out by the Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court. In such circumstances, the reasoning given in the impugned order dated 06.12.2018 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Jhajjar, dismissing the petition filed under Section 28-A on that account, is justified.

The argument raised that the judgment only dealt with the issue of limitation, is also not correct. The relevant portion of the judgment in Ramsingbhai (supra) read as under:

"It is clear from the opening words of the provision that the redetermination under Section 28A is available only in respect of an "Award" passed by the "court" under Part III of the Act, comprising Sections 18 to 28A (both inclusive). The "court" referred to in Section 28A of the Act is the court as defined under Section 3(d) to mean "... a principal civil court of original jurisdiction ...". Thus, the judgment of the appellate court is not within the purview of Section 28A. It is also to be noted that the appellate courts under Section 54 are under Part VIII of the Act whereas the redetermination is only in respect of the Award passed by the Reference Court under Part III of the Act. (See Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese v. Land Acquisition Collector1). In its recent judgment in Bharatsing v. The State of Maharashtra, this Court has surveyed the decisions on this issue and reiterated the legal principle.

What the appellant seeks is redetermination of compensation under the Act in terms of the judgment of the High Court passed under Section 54 of the Act. In view of the settled legal position which we have explained above, the appellant is not entitled to such a relief; his entitlement, if any, is only in terms of Section 28A of the Act based on the award of the Reference Court.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs."

From a reading of the above, it would be clear that the argument which has been raised by counsel is in complete contrast with what has been laid down by the Apex Court.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that it is always open to the petitioner to seek enhancement of compensation before the Executing Court, in view of the law laid down in A. Viswanatha Pillai v. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition (1991) 4 SCC 17, Smt. Parawati v. State of Haryana 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 572 and Parkasho v. State of Punjab 2011 (5) RCR (Civil) 493."

Accordingly, in view of the above reasoning the present writ petitions are also dismissed to maintain parity.