AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioners seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of a writ calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Special Tahsildar, under Na.Ka.No. 4287/88-B2, dated 6.7.1989 and
set aside the same and to direct him to make a reference u/s 28-A(3) read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of petitioner''s
2/9th share in Survey No. 578/3 of a total extent of 55 cents and 2/6th share in Survey No. 582/82 of a total extent of 69 cents at Mogappair
Village, Saidapet Taluk, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.
An extent of 55 cents of wet land in Survey No. 578/3 and an extent of 69 cents of wet land in Survey No. 582/2 in Mogappair, Village,
Saidapet Taluk, were notified for acquisition. According to petitioner, in the above said lands, 2/9th share belong to him, one Saroja is entitled to
1/9th share, one Pachaiammal is entitled to 3/9th share and one Angamuthu Acahari (petitioner''s brother) is entitled to the balance of 3/9th share.
The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs. 210 per cent, as per award dated 30.5.1983. Petitioner herein and the other sharers
received the amount under protest. But, Pachaiammal alone filed a reference application for getting enhancement of compensation u/s 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act. Her Reference was numbered as L.A.O.P.No. 3 of 1986, on the file of Sub Court, Poonamallee, wherein the market value
was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 654 per cent. Consequential solatium and interest were also awarded.
Petitioner thereafter filed application before the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) u/s 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act to get enhanced
compensation on the basis of the Award fixed by the civil court. The Land Acquisition Officer redetermined the market value at Rs. 654 per cent
and petitioner also received the enhanced compensation. The receipt of the enhanced compensation was under protest. After receiving the same
petitioner filed an application u/s 28-A(3) for referring the matter to civil court for getting enhanced compensation. The same was rejected by
respondent, and the same is challenged in this writ petition.
Respondent rejected the application on the ground that it is barred by limitation, and the application was only u/s 18 of the Act. According to
petitioner, the rejection is improper and he is entitled to get the market value again re-determined on the basis of the subsequent award passed by
the Land Acquisition Collector. This writ petition is filed to compel the respondents to make the reference.
Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. It is stated therein that after receiving the enhanced compensation amount, a reference
application was made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub Court, and even in that application, they did not see as to what is the amount
that is required as enhanced compensation. It is said that no request was made by petitioner u/s 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act and the request
was only u/s 18 of the Act. If the application is only u/s 18 of the Act, the same is also barred by limitation. It is taking into consideration these
facts, the application was rejected.
Heard learned Counsel on both sides. Section 28-A of the Act reads thus:
28-A. Redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court: (1) 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 not 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 redetermined 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 subsection, 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.
Section 28-A of the Act was included by virtue of an amendment to the Land Acquisition Act in 1984. The object underlying the enactment of
Section 28-A is to remove the inequality in the payment of compensation for the same or similar quality of land arising on account of inarticulate
and poor people not being able to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court u/s 18 of the Act. This is sought to be achieved by
providing an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered by the same notification to seek redetermination once any of them has
obtained order for payment of higher compensation from the reference court u/s 18.
In this case, the property belongs to joint owners and one part owner filed a reference application and got enhanced compensation. Thereafter,
the petitioner moved an application before the Land Acquisition Collector to get compensation on the basis of the Award passed by the civil court
u/s 28-A(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) awarded a higher compensation as fixed by the civil court.
The petitioner was not satisfied with the additional compensation awarded by the civil court. He made a reference u/s 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, for making a reference. For that reason, his application was rejected. The only question is, whether the rejection of the reference
application was proper.
The intention of the petition is clear when he filed the reference application that he is not satisfied by the re-determination of the compensation
amount. A mere mistake in the section should not be a ground for rejecting the application if he has filed the application in time. After re-
determination u/s 28-A(3) of the Act for making a reference to the Land Acquisition Collector. For such an application, the provisions under
Sections 18 to 28 are made applicable. It is only when Section 18 is also made applicable, an application is filed u/s 28-A(3) of the Act. Omission
to state that section is not fatal to the application. It is not the case of the respondents that they were misled by that application. They understood
the application as one for reference and they also understood that the petitioner was not satisfied by the re-determination of the compensation. The
District Collector, after re-determination, passed an Award on 25.4.1989 and an application for reference was made before him on 1.6.1989. u/s
18 of the Act, an application will have to be made within six weeks. If the period of limitation is calculated from that date, there is no question of
limitation. Similar question was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Union of India and another Vs. Pradeep
Kumari and others, . In that case, their Lordships said in paragraph 9 that ''in relation to beneficent legislation the law is well-settled that while
construing the provisions of such a legislation, the court should adopt a construction which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the
benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it. The provisions of Section 28-A should, therefore, be
construed, keeping in view the object underlying the said provision. Finally, in paragraph 11 of the judgment, their Lordships have summarised the
conditions for invoking Section 28-A (1) of the Act They read as follows:
(i) An award has been made by the court under part III after the coming into force of Section 28-A.
(ii) By the said award the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector u/s 11, has been allowed to the applicant in
that reference;
(iii) The person moving the application u/s 28-A is interested in other land covered by the same notification Section 4(1) to which the said award
relates.
(iv) The person moving the application did not make art application to the Collector u/s 18;
(v) the application is moved within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which the re-determination of amount of compensation
is sought, and
(vi) Only one application can be moved u/s 28-A for re-determination of compensation by an applicant.
In Feroz Gandhi Polytechnic v. III Additional District Judge, Rae Bareli 1995 A.I.H.C. 4589, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
had occasion to consider whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to determine the compensation without a reference from the Land Acquisition
Collector. In that case, a redetermination was made by the civil court, on a reference made by the District Collector who did not determine the
compensation. Paragraph 5, portion of para 6 and in para 7, read thus:
A bare reading of the above provision shows exclusion of the jurisdiction of the court for re-determination of amount of compensation u/s 28-A
of the Land Acquisition Act since under Sub-section (3) the jurisdiction of the civil court would be available only on reference made by the
Collector on the application moved by any person who has not accepted the award under Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A of the Land
Acquisition Act. It is very clear that first of all Section 28-A envisages dealing of the application by the Collector at the first instance for re-
determination. The jurisdiction of civil court arises only if one is not satisfied with the order passed on the application for re-determination by the
Collector.
...As indicated earlier also Section 23-A clearly provides under Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) that the application is to be dealt with by
the Collector and after hearing the interested parties he has to give his award under Sub-section (2). It is only after one is not satisfied or does not
accept the award given under Sub-section (2) by the Collector that he may apply for reference to the court.
Looking to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as referred to above, in our view, it is a clear-cut case where the court has assumed
jurisdiction which does not vest in it on the reference made by the collector, on an application u/s 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, for re-
determination of the award. Court gets jurisdiction only on a reference u/s 28-A(3) of the Act Which stage had not yet arrived in this case.
The rejection of the application in this case is not proper. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, being a beneficent legislation, technicalities
should not stand in the way of granting the relief.
In the result, the impugned order is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondent to make a reference to the competent civil Court
regarding the application filed by petitioner on 1.6.1989 in regard to his 2/9th share in S.Nos. 578/3 and 582 of Mogappair Village, Saidapet
Taluk, for getting enhanced compensation. I direct the respondent to do so within a period of two months from to-day. The writ petition is allowed
as indicated above. No costs. Connected W.M.P. is closed.