http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: HUKUM CHAND & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (5) 164        JT 1996 (4)   328  1996 SCALE  (3)669

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7119 OF 1996          (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3929 of 1994)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (for short, the ’Act’) was published on 24.3.1971. The Collector  under Section 11 passed his award on July 10, 1971. Thereon,  the appellant  along with  others sought and had reference to the Additional District Judge under Section 18. After further enhancement of the award under Section 26, the appellants  had not  carried the matter in appeal to the High Court  under Section 54. Some other claimants filed RFA No.1326/78  wherein   the  High   Court  had   enhanced  the compensation to Rs. 135/- per sq.yd. Subsequently, after two years, the  appellant had  filed applications  under Section 28A to the Land Acquisition Officer who in his award in L.C. case No.  51/91 by  order dated  May 10,  1993 dismissed the application. On revision filed by the appellants in C.R. No. 2659/93, the  High Court  of Punjab & Haryana by order dated September 21,1993  dismissed the  petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.      The only  question is:  whether  the  Land  Acquisition Officer was  right in  refusing to award the compensation to the appellants  @ Rs. 135/- per sq.yd. pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in RFA No. 1326/79. Section 28-A(1) of the Act reads thus:      "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-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    section   (1)and   who   are   also      aggrieved notwithstanding that they      had not  made an application to the      Collector  under   section  18,  by      written    application    to    the      Collector within application to the      Collector within  three months from      the dat e 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  and  the      time requisite for obtaining a copy      of the award shall be excluded."      A reading  thereof clearly  indicates that after making award under  Section 11  by the  Collector, if the claimants arising out of the same notification published under Section 4(1) of  the  Act,  aggrieved  against  the  award  made  on application and hold the reference under section 18 and when the civil  Court has  enhanced the compensation, persons who did not  make the applications under Section 18 and received the compensation  under Section  31 without protest, Section 28-A(1) gives  him right to make a written application under section 28-A(1)  within three  months from  the date  of the award made  by the  reference Court.  Under its proviso, the time taken  to obtain  its certified  copy from  the date of making the  application to  the date  of supplying the award shall be excluded. In other words, the aggrieved persons who had received  the compensation  without protest  but did not avail of the remedy of reference under Section 18, if one of the claimants  arising from  the same notification published under Section  4(1) of  the Act, had the benefit of enhanced compensation from the reference Court, the non-applicant has been empowered  under Section  28-A(1)to  avail  the  remedy under Section  28-A by  an  application  made  within  three months from  the date of the award of the reference Court to seek enhanced  compensation. In  this case,  admittedly  the appellants  have  availed  the  remedy  of  reference  under Section 18  and had  the compensation  enhanced. Thereafter, they did not pursue appellate remedy under Section 54 to the High Court for further enhanced compensation but some of the claimants pursued  the  appellate  remedy  and  had  further enhanced the compensation at Rs. 135/- per sq.yd. Having not availed of  the remedy  under Section 54, the appellants are not entitled  to make  an application under Section 28-A (1) to seek  the same  benefit of the enhanced compensation. The remedy under  Section 28-A(1)  is available to only when the compensation  was   enhanced  under  Section  26  award  and judgment in  part III  of  the  Act  and  the  same  is  not available when  it was enhanced under Section 54 of the Act. This Court  in  Scheduled  Castes  Cooperative  Land  Owning Society Ltd.  Bhatinda vs. Union of India [(1991) 1 SCC 174] had held  that the  claimants who  availed the  remedy under Section 18  are not  entitled  to  additional  amount  under Section 28-A  when the High Court enhanced the compensation. Similar view was also expressed in Babu Ram & Ors. vs. State of U.P.  & Anr.  [1995) 2  SCC  689].  The  appellants  are,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

therefore, not  entitled  to  make  the  applications  under Section  28-A  further  enhancement.  The  Land  Acquisition Officer and the High Court have rightly refused to grant the relief of enhanced compensation on par with other claimants. The further  contention that  the appellants are invidiously discriminated to  the payment  of same  compensation on  par with others  violating the equality guaranteed under Article 14 of  the Constitution  is no  longer res integra. This was concluded against the aggrieved persons by majority judgment of this  court in  K.S.  Paripoornan  vs.  State  of  Kerala [(1995) 1 SCC 367] and Babu Ram’s case (supra).      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.