Hukam Chand and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Leave granted.

Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on 24.3.1971. The Collector u/s 11 passed his award on July 10, 1971. Thereon, the appellant along with others sought and had reference to the Additional District Judge u/s 18. After further enhancement of the award u/s 26, the appellants had not carried the matter in appeal to the High Court u/s 54. Some other claimants filed RFA No. 1326/78 wherein the High Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 135 per sq. yd. Subsequently, after two years, the appellant had filed application u/s 28A to the Land Acquisition Officer who in his award in L.C. case No. 51/91 by order dated May 10, 1993 dismissed the application. On revision filed by the appellants in C.R. No. 2659/93, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by order dated September 21, 1993 dismissed the petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.

The only question is : whether the Land Acquisition Officer was right in refusing to award the compensation to the appellants @ Rs. 135 per sq. yd. pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in RFA No. 1326/79. Section 28-A(1) of the Act reads thus:

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 u/s 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification u/s 4, Sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had net made an application to the Collector u/s 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 clay on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

A reading thereof clearly indicates that alter making award u/s 11 by the Collector, if the claimant had not made a written application u/s 18 within limitation, but one of the claimants arising out of the same notification published u/s 4(1) of the Act, aggrieved against the award made on application and hold the reference u/s 18 and when the civil Court has enhanced the compensation, persons who did not make the applications u/s 18 and received the compensation u/s 31 without protest, Section 28-A(1) gives him right to make a written application u/s 28-A(1) within three months from the date of the award made by the reference Court. Under its proviso, the time taken to obtain its certified copy from the date of making the application to the date of supplying the award shall be excluded. In other words, the aggrieved persons who had received the compensation without protest but did not avail of the remedy of reference u/s 18, if one of the claimants arising from the same notification published u/s 4(1) of the Act, had the benefit of enhanced compensation - from the reference Court, the non-applicant has been empowered u/s 28-A(1) to avail the remedy u/s 28-A by an application made within three months from the date of the award of the reference Court to seek enhanced compensation. In this case, admittedly, the appellants have availed the remedy of reference u/s 18 and had the compensation enhanced. Thereafter, they did not pursue appellate remedy u/s 54 to the High Court for further enhanced compensation but some of the claimants pursued the appellate remedy and had further enhanced the compensation at Rs. 135 per sq. yd. Having not availed of the remedy u/s 54, the appellants are not entitled to make an application u/s 28-A(1) to seek the same benefit of the enhanced compensation. The remedy u/s 28-A(1) is available to only when the compensation was enhanced u/s 26 award and judgment in part III of the Act and the same is not available when it was enhanced u/s 54 of the Act. This Court in The Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda Vs. Union of India and others, had held that the claimants who availed the remedy u/s 18 are not entitled to additional amount u/s 28-A when the High Court enhanced the compensation. Similar view was also expressed in Babu Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. [1995| 2 SCC 689. The appellants arc, therefore, not entitled to make the applications u/s 28-A further enhancement. The Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court have rightly refused to grant the relief of enhanced compensation on par with other claimants. The further contention that the appellants are invidiously discriminated to the payment of same compensation on par with others violating the equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution is no longer res Integra. This was concluded against the aggrieved persons by majority judgment of this Court in K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala and Others, and Babu Ram's case (supra).

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.