Jagdish Ram vs The State of Haryana

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—The case of the petitioner is that against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector? Panchkula, he did not file any application for reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ''Act'').

The other claimants covered by the same acquisition filed applications seeking references and the District Judge made some enhancement by award dated 3-10-1981. Still feeling dissatisfied, those claimants came up in appeal before this Court and a learned Single Judge in Regular First Appeal No. 7 of 1982 decided on March 14r 1990 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 37/-per square yard.

Thereafter, petitioner filed an application u/s 28A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector. The plea raked by the petitioner for redetermination of the compensation was the; basis of the award of the High Court. That application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Land Acquisition Collector by an order dated 28-6-1990, Annexure P. 1. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the petitioner has filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

A reading of the order of the Land Acquisition Collector shows that he has not properly understood the scope of Section 28A of the Act and has confused the matter. The impression of the Land Acquisition Collector appears to be that in ease the other claimants had not come to the High Court probably he could give benefit of,. the. award of the learned District Judge to the petitioner and once there is a decision of the High Court on appeal from the award of the District Judge the application u/s 28A would not be maintainable.

The impression of the Land Acquisition Collector seems to be erroneous. On a plain reading of Section 28A of the Act it is clear that the final determination of the Court on the matter of fixation of compensation whether by the District Court or by the High Court or by the Supreme Court as the case may be would be the basis for redetermination of compensation u/s 28A of the Act for claimants who did not file application for reference- u/s 18 of the Act provided the application is within time In this behalf, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in The Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India (1991) 99 P. L. R. 314 (S.C.).

The Land Acquisition Collector should determine whether the petitioner filed an application ffor reference u/s 18 or not. If the petitioner filed an application u/s 18 then Section 28A of the Act would not be applicable but if not then be will proceed to redetermine the compensation provided the application of the petitioner is within three months of the award of the High Court.

For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed and after setting aside the order of the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula, dated''28-6-1990, the/matter is remitted to him for afresh decision in the Sight of the observations roads above.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkala on 25-2-1991. No costs.