Manmohan Singh and Others vs Union of India (UOI)

S.K. Jain, J.—Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1806 of 1991 and 1807 of 1991 involving common questions of fact and law are proposed to be disposed of by this single judgment.

Vide notification No. 81-PI/74 dated 24.12.1974 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called ''the Act''), an area measuring 244.24 acres in village Burail, H. B. No. 222, falling in the Union Territory, Chandigarh, was acquired by the Chandigarh Administration for public purpose, i.e. for the development of Sector 46, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh, announced award No. 230/LAO dated 29-3-1975. Being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector some of the landowners made applications for reference u/s 18 of the Act which were decided by the District Judge, Chandigarh, vide his judgment dated 10-11-1979, fixing the market value at Rs 33,333/-per acre at the flat rate. The above said judgment of the District Judge, Chandigarh, was challenged by one of the claimants in R.F. A. No. 800 of 1981 for further enhancement of the compensation. It was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 20 5 1987.

The petitioners herein had not filed any application u/s 18 of the Act but on the basis of the judgment dated 20.5.1987 of this Court they filed applications u/s 28A of the Act as introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (the Amending Act, for brevity), for redetermination of the amount of compensation, on 3 - 8-1987. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his order of October 5, 1989, dismissed the said application, saying as under :-

"Section 28A of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, is applicable only where enhancement is made by the ''Court'' means a principal civil Court of the original jurisdiction and not by the appellate Court. The claimants have filed these applications u/s 28A of the Act on the basis of the judgment of the Hon''ble High Court and moreover, there is no enhancement in that appeal and hence these applicants are not competent to file these applications u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."

Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants have filed these civil revisions.

Mr. S. D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the collector has grossly erred while interpreting Section 28A of the Act, as the interpretation given by the Collector would frustrate the very purpose for which Section 28A was brought on the statute book by way of amendment.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Union of India has vehemently argued that the redetermination has to be made on the basis of the award made under Part III, which refers to the award rendered u/s 23 of the Act.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.

The question doing rounds right now is as to what is the scope and effect of Section 28A of the Act as introduced by the Amending Act. Section 28A as introduced by the Amending Act is in the following terms :-

"28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court : -

(1) Where in an award under this Part 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 A, 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 u/s 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date 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, require 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 u/s 18."

It was introduced by the Amending Act to help those poor persons, who by reason of their poverty and ignorance had failed to take advantage of the light of reference to the Court u/s 18 of the Act. The landowners, who had applied for reference u/s 18 of the Act to the Court and the Court had enhanced the compensation amount and there was, on appeal, further enhancement by the High Court, are not entitled to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 28A. There is no provision in the Act apart from Section 28A for re-opening the award which had become final and conclusive. The conditions laid down in Section 28A of the Act are :

(i) the forum for determination is the Collector;

(ii) application has to be made in writting to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court;

(iii) the right is restricted to the persons who had not applied for reference u/s 18 of the Act;

(iv) the re-determination has to be made in terms of the award made u/s 23.

If these conditions are fulfilled, the petitioners could avail the remedy provided u/s 28A of the Act. Section 28A refers to the determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court under Part II. Section 28A appears under Part III. The award mentioned in this section obviously refers to the one rendered u/s 23 of the Act.

In Mewa Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana, A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 45, it was held as under:-

"Further more, there is no provision in the Act apart from Section 28A for reopening of an award which has become final and conclusive. No doubt, Section 28A now provides for redetermination of the amount of compensation provided the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. For such redetermination, the forum is the Collector'' and the application has to be made before him within thirty days from the date of the award, and the right is restricted to persons who had not applied for reference u/s 18 of the Act. If these conditions were satisfied, the petitioners could have availed of the remedy provided u/s 28A of the Act. In that event, Section 25 would enure to their benefit. Any other view would lead to disastrous consequences not intended by the Legislature."

The Supreme Court had interpreted Section 28A of the Act in The Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda Vs. Union of India and others, vide para No. 4 of the report, as under :-

"We may first deal with the contention based on the newly added Section 28A inserted by the Amending Act 68 of 1984, with retrospective operation from April 13, 1982. Under this provision where compensation awarded by the Collector u/s 11 is enhanced by the Court in reference u/s 18, the persons interested in the acquired land who were not parties to the reference may, by a written application to the Collector made within three months from the date of the award of the Court, request the Collector to predetermine the amount of compensation payable to them on the basis of the amount awarded by the Court. On receipt of such an application the Collector is expected to conduct an enquiry and make an award radetermining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. Any person who does not accept the award so made may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred for the determination of the Court where upon the provisions of Sections 18 and 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference u/s 18. It is obvious on a plain reading of sub-Section (1) of Section 28A that applies only to those claimants who had failed to seek a reference u/s 18 of the Act. The determination has to be done by the Collector on the basis of the compensation awarded by the Court in the reference u/s 18 of the Act and an application in that behalf has to be made to the Collector within 30 days from the date of the award. Thus only those claimants who had failed to apply for a reference u/s 18 of the Act are conferred this right to apply to the Collector'' for redetermination and not all those like the petitioners who bad not only sought a reference u/s 18 but had also filed an appeal in the High Court against the award made by the reference Court. The newly added Section 28A, therefore, clearly does not apply to a case where the claimant has sought and secured a reference u/s 18 and has even preferred an appeal to the High Court."

In Lila Krishan and Ors. v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula, Haryana (1991) 100 P. L. R. 65, a Division Bench of this Court held as under : -

"The landowner who comes to the Court u/s 28A of the Act, by relying on a particular award, the limitation should count for purposes of Section 28A of the Act, from the date of the award relied upon by the landowner. We consider that such an interpretation is in consonance with the spirit of Section 28A of the Act, in this view of the matter, we hold that the application of the petitioners u/s 28A(3) of the Act was within limitation."

A single Bench of this Court in Anant Ram v. State of Haryana, through Executive Engineer, SYL, Canal (1989) 96 P. L. R. 647 , held as under :-

"Now, admittedly in the present cases, the amount of compensation was awarded by the Collector u/s 11 of the Act, which amount was enhanced by the Court on reference. That being so, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification u/s 4(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector can, by written application to the Collector within three months, claim that the amount of compensation be re-determined."

The abovesaid judgment was followed by another Single Bench of this Court in Parkash Devi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1991 P. L. J. 209.

Identical question came up for determination before a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 73, 197 and 198 of 1991 and 2715 and 316 of 1990. All these revision petitions were decided by a single judgment of August 18, 1992, rendered in Civil Revision Petition No 73 of 1991 Smt Bhagti v. State of Haryana, C. R. 2715 and 3168 of 1990, wherein the following conclusions were deduced :-

"(1) Section 28A as inserted in the Act by the Amending Act has retrospective operation from April 13, 1982.

(2) Under this provision, if the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector u/s 11 of the Act is enhanced by the Court in a reference u/s 18, the persons interested in other land acquired by the same notification u/s 4(1), who did not make an application to the Collector u/s 18, can move written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court for re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to them on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court.

(3) The redetermination has to be made on the basis of the award made under Part III which refers to the one made u/s 23.

(4) Any person who does not accept the award by the Collector u/s 28A of the Act may, by a written application moved the Collector that the matter be referred for determination to the Court u/s 18 of the Act,

(5) Where more than one award with regard to the acquisition has been rendered by the Court, the landowner can take advantage of the award which is more beneficial and limitation will start from the date of the award.

(6) The award of the Court means the decision of the Court u/s 23 of the Act to whom reference was made u/s 18."

In view of the above detailed discussion, the irresistible conclusion is that a person interested who has not moved the Collector for making a reference u/s 18 of the Act can male an application u/s 28A for redetermination of the amount of compensation payable on the basis of the award of the Court. The award of the reference means the award of the Court to whom the reference u/s 18 of the Act was made and the application u/s 28A for predetermination of the amount of compensation has to be moved to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court.

The landowner who has moved for predetermining the amount of compensation u/s 28A of the Act can only be allowed higher compensation on the basis of the award rendered by the Court in a reference u/s 18 of the Act and he has to move the Collector within three months of the award of the Court. Here, in this case, the District Judge has given the award on November 10, 1979 The application u/s 28A of the Act was made on August 3, 1987, that is, after about 7 years and 6 months of the award of the Court. This inordinate delay has not been explained, rather the argument is that application u/s 28A of the Act in this case had rightly been moved within a period of three months from the judgment of this Court (and not from the award of the District Judge). This argument is not tenable as discussed above.

For the aforementioned discussion no fault can be found with the impugned order. Consequently, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.