http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: TOTA RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition  arises from the  judgment of the  High Court   of  Allahabad,   made on  November  19, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 12843/94.      Admittedly,  on reference under Section  18 of the Land Acquisition  Act,    1894  (for  shorts  the  "Act"),    the reference Court   passed  its   award and  decree on May 18, 1990.   The petitioner  filed an application  under  section 28-A of  the Act  on July 22, 1992 stating  that he came  to know on  19th    July,  1992  that  in  another    reference compensation   for the   lands had been enhanced rates as he had filed  application   under proviso to section 28-A reads as under :      " 28-A    Re-determination  of  the      amount    of  compensation  on  the      basis of  the award  of  the  Court      (1) Whether    in  an  award  under      this   Part,   the Court  allows to      the applicant any amount of awarded      by the  Collector    under  Section      11, the  persons interested  in all      the other  land  covered by he 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  16,    by  written      application   to    the   collector      within three  months  from  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  an      application     to  the   Collector      shall be  made under   this    sub-

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

    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      Section   18 to  28 shall,  so  far      may be,  apply to such reference as      they   apply to  a reference  under      Section 18."      A reading  thereof clearly  that a person whose land is acquired   under   a common    notification    issued  under Section   4 910   of the Act but  who failed to avail of the remedy of  the remedy  of reference  under section   18,  is eligible to  make   a written   application    within  three months  from the date of the award of the court enacting the compensation.   It has  been interpreted by this  court that the "court "  means court  of original civil jurisdiction to whom   reference under   section  18 would lie.  Admittedly, the award  of the  reference court  having  been made on May 18, 1990,  the limitation  began to run from that date.  The proviso to  Section 28-A  gives a  right   to the persons to obtain the  certified copy  of the  award and decree and the time  taken  for obtaining the certified copy  of the  award and the  decree shall be excluded in computing the period of three months.   In  view  of  the  express  language,    the question of  knowledge does  not arise  and, therefore,  the plea of  the petitioner  that the limitation of three months begins   to start   from  the   dare of  the knowledge    is clearly   unsustainable   and cannot  be  accepted  in  that behalf.      The special leave petition  is accordingly dismissed.