Union Of India vs State Of Punjab And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 699 P&H

CWP-4154-2021(O&M)                        1


    114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CWP-4154-2021(O&M)
                                        Date of decision:22.02.2021


Union of India
                                                 .......Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                 ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:- Mr.Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.S.Meho, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Addl. AG, Punjab

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.(ORAL) Through this writ petition, the petitioner-UOI assails the

correctness of an award dated 30.10.2020 passed by the Land

Acquisition Collector in the exercise of its powers under Section 28-A of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of

1894').

Section 28-A provides that if a land owner do not apply for

reference under Section 18 of the Act and in pursuance of reference to

the court at the behest of other owners, the market value of the land has

been assessed to be more than what has been assessed by the Land

Acquisition Collector, then such land owner who did not seek reference

u/s 18 can apply for re-determination claiming parity. In other words, if

1 of 5

on the application of the other land owners the court enhances the

market value when compared with the assessment of the Land

Acquisition Collector, then the land owner who did not apply for

reference under Section 18 of the Act, can subsequently apply for re-

determination, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions laid down

under Section 28-A (1). In the considered view of the Court, any party

aggrieved of such re-determination has a statutory remedy under Section

28-A of the 1894 Act. Section 28-A(3) provides that any person who

has not accepted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector

under sub-section (2) may by written application apply to the Collector

to refer the matter to the Court.

Section 28-A is extracted as under:-

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 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:




                                 2 of 5

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 reference under Section 18.

Thus, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of seeking

reference under Section 28-A (3).

Learned senior counsel submits that Section 28-A is not

applicable as the private respondents had applied for a reference under

Section 18 of the Act of 1894 and therefore, the remedy under Section

28-A was available to the respondents. He further submits that the order

in question has been passed pursuant to the direction issued by the Court

in CWP-6009-2020. He further submits that the petitioner had objected

to the award of the amount, however, those objections have not been

3 of 5

considered. The petitioner had also requested the Collector to direct the

owners to produce the copies of the various applications filed by them

seeking references under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. He in support

thereof, relies upon a judgment passed in Babua Ram vs.State of Uttar

Pradesh' (1995) 2 SCC 689.

Sub-section 3 of the Section 28 A enables any party to seek

reference to the Court, if he/it is not satisfied with the award passed by

the Collector under Section 28-A (2). In the present case, the award has

been passed by the Collector in the aforesaid provision. Hence, the

petitioner does have an effective alternative statutory remedy to apply to

the Collector requiring him to make a reference to the Court. All the

arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be examined by

the court once the Collector refers the matter to the competent Court. It

is pertinent to note that in the order dated 04.03.2021, the High Court

had only directed the respondent to take steps on the representation of

the land owner. Hence, the aforesaid direction nowhere debars the

petitioner from invoking the statutory remedy to apply for reference to

the Collector under Section 28-A (3).

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has

drawn the attention of the Court to the last 10 lines of para 42 of the

judgment to contend that the remedy under Section 28-A (3) of the Act

of 1894, is not an effective remedy and it is also not available in all the

circumstances.

This Court has carefully read para 42 of the judgment. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the Collector awards

4 of 5

compensation in excess of the amount given under Section 26, the

beneficiary or the State is left with no remedy under the Act. However,

in this case, there are no allegations that the Collector has awarded

compensation in excess of the amount given under Section 26 of the Act.

Hence, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable.

Hence, the petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy.

Disposed of.

22.02.2021                                     (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes /No
Whether Reportable               Yes / No




                               5 of 5