T. Abdul Hameed vs State of Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The issue involved in all these three cases is almost similar and in relation to very same Award passed by the acquisitioning authority. Hence these cases are dealt with together.

The land belonging to the petitioners were sought to be acquired on the strength of 4 (1) notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act. The proceedings culminated in the Award passed by the acquisitioning authority. In some cases, the owners of the land, who were not satisfied with the compensation offered by the concerned authority sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The verdict passed by the Reference Court was not in favour of the parties and in the said circumstances, they sought to challenge the same by way of Land Acquisition Appeals before this Court. It is stated that the said appeals were considered and remanded for fresh consideration of the reference Court. After fresh consideration, Ext. P1 common Award was passed on 30.11.2013. The case of the petitioners is that, in view of the common Award passed by the reference Court, the petitioners are also entitled to have the enhanced compensation, by virtue of proximity of the land in question and on account of the similar credentials. It is also pointed out that the properties belonging to the petitioners are covered by the very same notification and as such, the case of the petitioners squarely comes within the purview of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. It was accordingly, that the petitioners filed requisite applications [Ext. P2 in W.P.(C) No. 19245 & 19605 of 2014 and Ext. P3 in other case]. It is stated that the applications are filed well within the time. In spite of this, the applications preferred by the petitioners were simply rejected, as borne by Ext. P3 in the former two cases and Ext. P4 in the latter case, stating that the claim put forward by the petitioners is not liable to be entertained for the fact that no objection was ever preferred under Section 18 of the Act.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who points out that, by virtue of law declared by the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Shivbai and others, , unless objection is raised, claim for enhancement of compensation cannot be entertained on a subsequent occasion.

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the law declared by the Apex Court as per the decision cited supra was with reference to scope of Section 18 of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to the said aspect. The issue involved herein is entirely different, which is with reference to the right of the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act. Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows :

"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, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 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 under Section 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 an giving them a reasonable opportunity of being head 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 under section 18."

It is seen that, filing of any objection under Section 18 is not necessary, as far as the proceedings under Section 28A are concerned. This is more so, in view of the ''non-obstante clause'' contained under Section 28A, which clearly says that, it shall be notwithstanding the fact that the concerned party had not made an application before the collector under Section 18.

Going by the pleadings and proceedings it can be seen that the only objection raised for rejection of the application to have the benefit under Section 28A, was non-preference of objection under Section 18. This Court finds that the idea and understanding of the respondent with regard to the relevant provision is per se wrong and unsustainable in all respects, as Section 28A stands on a different footing. Admittedly, the matter was got finalized on 30.11.2013, by virtue of the common Award and the petitioners have filed necessary application under Section 28A, within three months as specified. In the said circumstances, the applications ought not have been rejected by the concerned authority, with reference to non filing of objection under Section 18.

Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The competent authority is directed to consider the applications preferred by the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, for redressal of the grievance of the petitioners. The proceedings as above shall be finalized, at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petitions are allowed to the said extent. No cost.