AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bilal Nazki, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counter-affidavit is not filed.
In terms of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act'') dated 09-10-1975, the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired, the award was passed on 09-10-1979 and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs. 4,363/- per acre. Land of various other persons was also acquired in terms of the same notification and the award. Some of them filed an application u/s 18 of the Act for reference to the Civil Court. The learned Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, passed an award in O.P. No. 51 of 1987 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,363/- per acre to Rs. 8,500/- per acre. The award was pronounced by the learned Judge on 07-12-1989. The petitioner filed an application on 08-12-1989 before the Civil Court for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and copy was made available to him on 08-02-1990. He filed an application in terms of Section 28A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determination of the amount of compensation on 27-02-1990. The Land Acquisition Officer kept the application pending for more than four years and then passed the impugned order. The application was rejected on two grounds; firstly, the petitioner was not an aggrieved person as he had accepted the award without protest and secondly, he had not filed the judgment of the court. The petitioner on affidavit stated that he has filed the copy of the judgment. It is not disputed as no counter is filed.
Now coming to the first ground on which the application was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, this Court finds it an irrelevant ground. Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act lays down as follows:
"28-A - 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 - 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference u/s 18."
From bare perusal of the above provision it becomes clear that this provision is available only to those persons who have not availed the remedy u/s 18 of the Act. Had the petitioner protested, then a reference u/s 18 would have been made. Section 28A of the Act applies only to those persons who have not made an application to the Collector u/s 18 of the Act. The only limitation for re-determination on the basis of the amount of compensation u/s 28A of the Act pertains to the period within which after the pronouncement of the award by the court, a claimant can approach the Land Acquisition Officer. He has to approach within three months of the pronouncement of the award by the Civil Court. The petitioner shall also get the time spent by him in obtaining copy of the award since on facts I am taking everything to be correct in the writ petition as no counter is filed, therefore the only conclusion, which one can come to, is that the application had been made within time. The Collector has also not stated in his memo that the application had not been made in time. For these reasons, the impugned memo is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The Collector is directed to re-determine the basis of the amount of compensation keeping in view the award passed by the Civil Court in accordance with law.