Judgment :-

I.A. No.3

1. An application i.e. I.A. No. 3 has been filed by the Central Institute of Fresh Water Acqua-Culture (CIFWA), Bhubaneswar under the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) for their impleadment as Respondent. Mr. V.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted that the land in dispute in fact had been acquired for the said applicants, therefore, the applicants be impleaded as parties in this appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants have no objection in this regard. Consequently, the applicants are impleaded as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in this appeal. The I.A. is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Appeal No.1271 of 2002

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 23.2.1999 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent for seeking direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to consider his application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called `the Act).

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal, as stated in the petition, are that a huge area of land was notified under section 4 of the Act in the official Gazette of the State of Orissa dated 1.1.1973 (Annexure-5). The acquisition was sought for establishment of the Central Institute of Fresh Water Acqua-Culture, i.e., a Fish Farm. Declaration under section 6 of the Act in respect of the said land was made on 9.7.1973 and was published in the official Gazette dated 11.7.1973. The Land Acquisition Collector made award, so far as the land of the present respondent no.1 is concerned, on 31.7.1975 assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.2500/- per acre. Respondent no.1 did not agitate the matter further, however, other persons whose lands stood notified by the same notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act filed the reference under section 18 of the Act and the same was decided vide Award dated 5.1.1995 assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.10,000/- per acre while deciding Misc. Case No.362/94. The respondent filed application under Section 28A of the Act on 21.3.1995 claiming the same market value for his land. The Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated 11.3.1997 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved the respondent filed the writ petition which has been allowed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri J.S. Attri, learned senior counsel for the appellant -State of Orissa has raised a large number of issues contending that the application under Section 28A of the Act had rightly been rejected by the Collector as the same was not maintainable. It had been filed at a belated stage i.e. after more than 20 years of the date of award made under Section 11 of the Act. The High Court has held that the application under section 28A had been filed within limitation, however, the Collector has been directed to decide the said application, provided, it is found to be maintainable. The order itself is contradictory as the issue of maintainability solely depends upon the issue of limitation and no other issue can be examined by the Collector. Therefore, the High Court ought to have dismissed the petition.

5. On the other hand, Shri M. Samantaray, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 has vehemently opposed the petition contending that the High Court has rightly held that the application had been filed within limitation and therefore, no interference is required. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Grievance has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant State that application under Section 28-A of the Act was filed after 20 years and therefore it was not maintainable. Law requires that the application be filed by the eligible person within three months from the date of the reference award, on the basis of wh