Full Text
WPC No.3595/2011 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24.05.2011 WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.7523/2011
YUDHVIR SINGH …PETITIONER
Through: Mr.N.S.Dalal, Advocate
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? 2011:DHC:2904-DB SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (ORAL) CM No.7523/2011 Allowed subject to just exceptions. + WP (C) No.3595/2011
1. The petitioner seeks to raise a legal plea that he is entitled to maintain an application for enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („the said Act‟ for short) even though filed admittedly beyond three (3) months of the date of the award on the ground that it was filed within three months of the date of the knowledge of the award. In substance the plea is that it is the date of knowledge of the petitioner which is material for purposes of filing an application under Section 28-A of the said Act to claim parity in respect of compensation qua persons who had sought and obtained enhanced compensation.
2. The factual matrix is limited. The petitioner was owner of the land in question, which was situated in Village Dhaka. The land was sought to be acquired by issuance of a notification u/Section 4 of the said Act on 13.11.1959, which was followed by a declaration dated 22.11.1962 issued under Section 6 of the said Act. An award no.1557, in this regard, was passed on 30.03.1963. The petitioner never preferred a reference for enhancement of compensation. Other aggrieved land owners from the same village and in respect of the same award, sought a reference. These persons are stated to have succeeded ultimately in a decision rendered by this Court in RFA No.23/1970 vide order dated 24.04.1987. This fact is stated not to be within the knowledge of the petitioner till 26.06.2008, when he applied for a certified copy and obtained the same on 04.07.2008. The petitioner thereafter filed applications under Section 28-A of the said Act on 10.07.2008 and 12.08.2008. The aforesaid applications were not entertained. The last communication in this behalf (which is the impugned communication) is dated 13.01.2010. The impugned communication/order reads as under: “ With reference to your applications dated 10.07.2008 and 12.08.2008 on the subject mentioned above. In this regard, I am to inform you that your applications have been dismissed on the ground that the judgment of ADJ and Hon‟ble High Court on the basis of which you have sought the compensation u/s 28-A of LA Act were passed on 15.02.08, 24.07.87 and 14.02.02 respectively and you have filed applications on 10.07.08 and 12.08.08 after a considerable gap of time as prescribed in LA Act.”
3. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. An aggrieved party is entitled to seek a reference inter alia in respect of the quantum of compensation under Section 18 of the said Act.
5. Section 28-A of the said Act was introduced with effect from 24.09.1984 to give benefit of an award which may have been made in respect of a decision made in a reference where other land owners from the same village and in respect of the same award had sought such a reference and succeeded. The objective was to give parity. The said Section reads 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: 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.”
6. A reading of the aforesaid Section thus provides that in order to avail of the benefit of Section 28-A of the said Act, an application has to be made within three months of the date of the award. The proviso stipulates that the time to be excluded for making such an application is only the time spent in obtaining a copy of the award.
7. The aforesaid provision was interpreted even more beneficially in a judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari & Ors.; (1995) 2 SCC 736. The legal position propounded is that where more than one award is made by the Court, an applicant under Section 28-A of the said Act can avail of the benefit by taking last award into consideration and moving an application within the time stipulated from such last award. In arriving at this conclusion, the beneficial nature of legislation has been taken into consideration as set out in para 8 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid observations should result in even more beneficial interpretation and thus the date of knowledge should be taken into account as is often done in respect of different provisions while calculating limitation. Learned counsel has also relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in a more recent judgment in V.Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited and Anr.; (2010) 10 SCC 650 where mere pendency of the application was held not to deny the legitimate rights to seek enhancement of compensation.
9. Learned counsel for the LAC, on the other hand, submits that the effect of the provisions cannot go beyond what the legislature has stipulated, and that the proviso to Section 28-A of the said Act itself makes it clear how the period of limitation is to be calculated for purposes of making an application under Section