http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SMT. BHAGTI (DECEASED) THROUGH HER L.RS. JAGDISH RAM SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave arises  from order  of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on August 18, 1992 in Civil Revision No. 73 of 1991.      The learned  counsel for  the petitioner  has contended that the decision of this Court in Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.K.  & Narc.  [(1995)  2  SC  689]  was  referred  to  a Constitution Bench in Jose Antanio Cruz Dos R. Rodriqueses & Anr. v.  Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. [1996) 1 SCC 88 = J.T. 1995  (8) SC  3281 and  thereafter cases  with  similar facts were  also referred. We find that the statement is not accurate and  in the  facts of  this case, the question does not arise. The admitted position is an under.      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984  [for short  the ‘Act’]  was published on June 26, 1973 acquiring 133.24 acres of land situated in Village Dara Kalan, District  Kurukshetra for development and utilisation of the  land for  residential purposes. The Collector in his award dated  July 17,  1975 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.  3/- per  square yard. The appellant did not seek any reference under  Section 18. However, on reference sought by others, the  district judge  in his  award and  decree dated October 3, 1981 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7/- per sq. yd. Dissatisfied  therewith, those claimants filed appeal in the High  Court. The High Court by judgment and decree dated March 14,  1990 further  enhanced the compensation to Rs. 37 per sq.  yd. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application within the  prescribed limitation period of 30 days from the date of the judgment of the High Court under Section 28-A of the Act  for payment  of the enhanced compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector  by  Order  dated  September  5,  1990 dismissed  the   application  but  the  District  Judge  re- determined the  compensation by  Order  dated  December  24, 1991. The  revision application,  on reference  by a learned single Judge,  was allowed  by the  Division  Bench  setting aside the reference Court award. Thus, this special leave.      It is  contended that the petitioner is entitled to re- determination of  compensation on  par with  others and  the question of  limitation does  not  stand  in  the  way.  The question, therefore,  is as to when the limitation begins to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

run for  the purpose  of  filing  of  an  application  under Section 28-A  of the  Act? The  Amendment  Act  68  of  1984 introducing Section  28-A had  come into  force with  effect from September  24, 1984.  Section 28-A  envisage giving  of benefit to  a person  who had  accepted the award made under Section  11  without  protest  and  did  not  avail  of  the reference under  Section  18  for  further  enhancement  and others had  the ward  of enhanced  compensation. He has been given right  to make  a written  application to  the  L.A.O. within 30  days from  the date  of the  award of  the  Court excluding the  time taken  to obtain a certified copy of the award of  the court.  IT is  now fairly  well settled  legal proposition that  the award of the court is the award of the reference court  under Section  18. That  is clear  from the statement of  the objective  and reasons  as also  from  the unequivocal language  used in Section 28-A-(1) of the At. It is equally  well settled  legal position  that once time has begun to  run, it will continue to run until it is stayed by an appropriate  court. The remedy, thereafter stands barred. The proviso  to  Section  28-A(1)  only  excludes  the  time actually  taken  in  obtaining  the  certified  copy,  while computing the  period of  three months limitation prescribed under Section  28-A(1). In  other words,  the time  take  to obtain certified copy alone is to be excluded in computation of  limitation  of  three  months.  The  reference  in  Jose Antonio’s case  was confine  to the  question as to which of the two awards, when there are more than one award passed by the reference Court in respect of the land covered under the same notification  published under  Section 4(1), would give cause of  action and  to the  question  limitation  to  file application under  Section  28-A(1).  In  other  words,  the question therein  was which  of the  two dates of two award, furnishes the  period of  limitation of three months. In the present case  in hand that question dos not arise. There are no two awards of the reference Court. In Scheduled Caste Co- op. Land  Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1991 SC 730], a Bench of three Judges of this Court held that "It is obvious on a plain reading of Sub-Section (1) of Section 28- A that  is applies only to those claimants who had failed to seek a  reference under  Section 18. The redetermination has to be done by the Collector on the basis of the compensation awarded by  the Court  in the reference under Section 18 and an application  in  that  behalf  has  to  be  made  to  the Collector within  30 days  from the  date of  the award. The order of  the  High  Court  does  not  give  right  of  file application under Section 28A(1).      In State  of Punjab  V/s. Raghbir  Singh &  Ors. [1995) Supp. 2  SCC 679)  on similar  facts the  ward was  accepted without protest  and no  reference was  sought  for  by  the respondents. On  reference under  Section 18 at the instance of others,  the District  Judge confirmed  the award  of the Collector  but   on  appeal  the  High  Court  enhanced  the compensation. When  application under  Section 28-A (1) came to be  filed after the High Court judgment. It was held that the remedy  under Section 28-A was unavailable as the decree of the  High Court  is not that of the reference Court under Section 18.  The limitation period had begun to run from the date of  the award of the District Judge. In State of Punjab V/s.  Raghubir   Singh  [(1989)   3  SCR   316  at  339],  a Constitution Bench  had held that the words "any such award" cannot have  any reference  to the  appellate orders  of the High Court  or of  the Supreme  Court.  In  the  context  of Section 30  (2), it  must have reference to the award of the Collector or the Civil Court made between April 30, 1982 and September 24,  1984. In  other words, the Constitution Bench

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

affirmed that  the award  of the  Court is  of the reference Court or  the Collector as the case may be. In D. Venkamma & Ors. V/s.  Special Tehsildar (LA) Unit-IV, Janagareddigudem. W.G. District,  Elugi, A.P.  [1996) (1)  851), under similar facts as  in this  case, the  award came  to be  made by the District Judge  on  reference  at  the  instance  of  others covered under  the same notification but no application came to be  made immediately  thereafter. The Civil Court enhance compensation on  November 26,  1983. The  High Court’s award was made  on February  1, 1989. Thereafter, on May 12, 1989, application  under   Section  28-A  (1)  was  filed  seeking redetermination of  the compensation. It was held that court referred in  Section 28 is the reference Court under Section 18  and   not  the  High  Court  and  that,  therefore,  the application filed, though within limitation from the date of the High  Court’s judgment,  was not  maintainable. In  U.P. State Industrial  Development Corpn. Ltd. V/s. State of U.P. &  Ors.   [(1995)   2   SCC   766],   an   application   for redetermination of  the compensation  was  filed  after  the award of the reference Court, was pending appeal in the High Court. The  Appellant objected  to  the  redetermination.  A Bench of  three Judges  of this  Court had  held that  since appeal was  pending, the  Collector  was  not  justified  in redetermining the  compensation. The  award of the Collector was set  aside the  matter was  directed to  be kept pending till the  appeal was disposed of in the High Court. In State of Maharashtra  V/s. Manakchand Pyarmal & Ors. [(1996) a SCC 297], same direction was given to keep the application under Section 28-A  pending till  the appeal against the reference Court awarded  was decided  by the  High Court.  In State of Punjab V/s.  Raghubir Singh  & Ors. [(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 679] it was  held that  an application  for  re-determination  of compensation can  be made  only on the basis of the judgment of the  reference Court and the same must be made within the limitation period prescribed by Section 28-A (1) of the Act. Therein, the facts were that award was made by the Collector on December  22, 1983. The reference Court by judgment dated September 10,  1990 enhanced  the compensation.  Application filed  on   January  2,  1991  under  Section  28-A  seeking redetermination of  the compensation  on the  basis  of  the judgment of  the High Court, was dismissed by the Collector. On revision  application, the  High Court  directed by order dated August 14, 1992 redetermination of the compensation on the basis  of its earlier judgment dated September 12, 1990. On those  facts this  Court held  that the  application  for redetermination was barred by limitation. Appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was set aside.      Thus only those claimants who had failed to apply for a reference under Section 18 of the Act are conferred with the right to apply for redetermination under Section 28A(1). But all those  who had not only sought a reference under Section 18 but  had also  filed an  appeal in the High Court against the award  made by  the reference  court are not entitled to avail of  the remedy  under Section  28A. Equally, the right and  remedy of reference Court under Section 18 had enhanced the compensation  in an  award and  decree under section 26. Within three  months from  the date  of the  reference court excluding the  time taken under proviso, the applicant whose land was acquired under the same notification but who failed to avail  the remedy  under Section 18, would be entitled to avail the  right and remedy under Section 28A. The order and judgment of  the High  Court does not give such right. Thus, this Court held that Section 28-A does not apply to an order made  by   the  High   Court  for   redetermination  of  the compensation. Thus,  we hold that the question of  reference

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

to the  Constitution Bench does not arise. The claimants are not entitled  to make  an application for redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A(1) after the judgment of the High Court  not are  the claimants entitled to avail of that award which  is more  beneficial to the claimants, i.e., the High Court judgment.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.