Ram Sarup and Others vs State of Haryana

M. Rama Jois, C.J. and J.L. Gupta, J.—The short question of law that arises for consideration in this case is : whether a person whose land is acquired under the previsions of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act) and who has sought reference u/s 18 of the Act, and on which reference there has been a judgment of the Court fixing the quantum of compensation, is entitled to approach the Collector for grant of higher compensation on the ground that in respect of the similar land, higher compensation has been awarded by a higher Court in some other case acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose ?

The provisions of Section 28A of the Act read :-

"Re-determination 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 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 and 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference u/s 18."

The language of Section 28A is clear and unambiguous. The persons who are entitled to approach the Collector for re determination of compensation are only those who had not sought a reference u/s 18 of the Act. In the present case, admittedly, the appellants had sought a reference u/s 18 of the Act. On such a reference, in appeal, this Court had fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per square yard. That judgment has become final inter paries. Section 28A of the Act does not empower the Collector to sit in judgment over the award made by a civil Court on the ground that the Supreme Court in a similar case has awarded compensation at a higher rate The matter is not res Integra. The scope of Section 28A of the Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his Lrs. and Others Vs. State of Haryana through The Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, , paragraph five thereof reads :-

"Furthermore there is no provision in the Act apart from Section 28A for re-opening of an award which has become final and conclusive No doubt Section 28A now provides for the re-determination of the amount of compensation provided the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. For such re-determination, 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 ensure to their benefit. Any other view would lead to disastrous consequences not intended by the Legislature."

Therefore, we answer the question set out above in the negative.

That learned counsel for the appellants then contended that in view of the above interpretation of Section 28A the section itself is liable to be struck down on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution because the said provision gives relief to a similarly situated person who had claimed compensation, but had not challenged the same, but denies the relief to a person similarly situated who had sought a reference u/s 18 of the Act but had not challenged the award made by the Court. Though the argument appears to be attractive, on an indepth scrutiny, it is devoid of any merit. To illustrate, take a case in which two person had sought reference u/s 18 of the Act and both of them were dissatisfied by the compensation fixed by the Civil Court and appeal to the High court and the High Court confirms the award or enhances the compensation and out of them only one alone files an appeal to the supreme Court and secures a favourable order from the Supreme Court in that he gets compensation at a higher rate. In such a case in respect of the person who had not preferred an appeal to the Supreme court, the award made by the high Court becomes final. The latter cannot apply to the Collector, as the Collector cannot modify the award made by the High Court which had become final, in the light of the order made by the Supreme Court. It cannot be said that the person who had not preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court and had accepted the quantum of compensation fixed by the High Court and the person who had secured a favourable order from the Supreme Court are persons similarly situated. Position would be similar in a case where the award by the Civil Court on a reference u/s 18 was accepted by one and appealed to the High Court successfully by another. The Collector cannot review the order passed by the Civil Court. Therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

For the aforesaid reasons, we make the following order.

The appeal is dismissed.