IMPORTANT POINT
Mere long pendency of the application under Section 28A(3) cannot be a ground to deprive a person of his right to seek further enhancement in the amount of compensation.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J. —

1. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court is whether the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for making a reference to the Court was maintainable and the High Court committed an error by quashing the proceedings of O.P. No.31 of 2000 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’).

2. The land of the appellant (20 acres 11 guntas) was acquired by the State Government in 1985 as a part of acquisition of large tract of land for mining operations to be undertaken by respondent No.1 – Singareni Collieries Company Pvt. Ltd. By an award dated 3.8.1987, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.7,000/- per acre for dry land under cultivation (category I) and Rs.6,000/- per acre for dry land which was kept fallow (category II).

3. On a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court, after considering the evidence produced by the parties fixed market value of category I land at Rs.10,000/- per acre and of category II land at Rs.9,500/- per acre. This did not satisfy the land owners, who filed Appeal Suit No.978 of 1990 in the High Court, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Reference Court for re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to the land owners. The Reference Court reconsidered the matter and passed order dated 17.7.2000, whereby it fixed market value of the two categories of land at Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per acre respectively. The appeals filed by the parties against the fresh determination of market value by the Reference Court are pending before the High Court.

4. The appellant who had not invoked Section 18 of the Act filed an application under Section 28A(1) for payment of enhanced compensation at par with other land owners, at whose instance reference was made by the Collector. By an order dated 31.12.1990, the Land Acquisition Officer held that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation at par with other land owners. On the same day, the appellant filed an application under Section 28A(3) of the Act for making a reference to the Court for fixing the fair market value of the acquired land by asserting that he was accepting the amount of compensation under protest. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to Collector, Karimnagar, who accorded permission for making a reference to the Court. Thereupon, the Land Acquisition Officer sent communication dated 2.6.2000 to the Reference Court for fixing the fair market value of the appellant’s land.

5. Respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid communication in Writ Petition No.23600/2000, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with an observation that the Civil Court is already seized with the matter in O.P. No. 31/2000 and the petitioner can agitate all the points including the one relating to maintainability of reference made under Section 28A(3). The Division Bench allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and held that a person who gets benefit of higher compensation under Section 28A(1) cannot file an application under Section 28A(3).

6. Shri P.S. Narsimha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the view expressed by the Division Bench on the maintainability of the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari,1 (1995) 2 SCC 736, Union of India v. Hansoli Devi,2 (2002) 7 SCC 273, Union of India v. Munshi Ram (Dead) by Lrs.3 (2006) 4 SCC 538 and Kendriya Karamchari Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti Limited, Noida v. State of Uttar Pradesh,4 (2009) 1 SCC