Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhan Devi And Others vs Union Of India And Another on 29 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
132
CWP-6397-2022 (O&M)
Date of Order: 29.03.2022
SMT. DHAN DEVI AND OTHERS ..Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. A.S. Bhatti, Advocate
for the petitioners.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash order dated 18.10.2021, passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Collector while dismissing the application
under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Some facts are required to be noticed.
The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, was issued on 16.11.1982 to acquire the land for constructing a field
firing range. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on
19.09.1983. An application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, filed by the various other owners, the Reference Court assessed the
market value at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per acre against which the first appeal
was dismissed, whereas, in the Letter Patent Appeal the amount has been
enhanced. Ultimately, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
was upheld by the Supreme Court on 19.01.2011. The petitioners for the
first time submitted an application on the basis of judgment passed by the
Supreme Court on 04.11.2011. They also filed another application on
12.03.2019.
1 of 3
CWP-6397-2022 (O&M) -2-
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is extracted as
under:-
"[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 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, required 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 evident that before an application under Section 28-A of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is entertained, the landowner is required to
prove that the Reference Court has enhanced the market value and he has
filed an application within a period of three months from the date of
judgment of the Reference Court while excluding the time taken in the copy
thereof. This aspect has been examined in detail in Civil Writ Petition
No.8456 of 2020, titled as "Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure
2 of 3
CWP-6397-2022 (O&M) -3-
Development Corporation Limited Vs. Shanti and others".
The Supreme Court while elaborately interpreting has held that
the application can be filed within the period of three months from any
award passed by the Reference Court.
In the present case, the petitioners did not file application within
the time prescribed. The Land Acquisition Collector is not a Court,
therefore, it does not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to issue the writ
is made out.
Dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 29th, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
