Gurbachan Singh and ors. vs Union of India and ors.

Naresh Chander Jain, J. (Oral)

This judgment of mine would dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5454 of 1985, 5 to 7, 266 to 276, 723 to 725, 1453 to 1455, 1657 and 2005 of 1986. These writ petitions have been directed against the order of the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar (Annexure P.3) by which the petitioners'' applications under section 28A of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'') for redetermination of the amount of compensation have been dismissed by observing that the land was acquired under the Defence of India Act and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the view of the Special Land Acquisition Collector is untenable in law. It has been held by D.V. Sehgal, J. in Jasmel Kaur and others v. The Union of India, 1987 RLR 409, that resort can be had to the provisions of section 28A of the Act for redetermination of the compensation. In Jasmel Kaur''s case (supra) this Court was dealing with the similar situation where the land was requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Similar is the position in the present case. D.V. Sehgal, J. in Jasmel Kaur''s case (supra) relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Krishan Khosla and ors. v. Union of India and anr., AIR 1975 (P&H) 74. This being the legal position which is settled, I allow the writ petitions with no order as to costs. The Special Land Acquisition Collector is directed to make redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Act by following he law laid down in Jasmel Kaur''s case (supra) and Hari Krishan Khosla''s case (supra)