IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Limitation for moving application under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will begin to run only from date of award on the basis of which redetermination of compensation is sought.
(2) Earlier decision of a Bench of particular strength would be binding on subsequent Benches of this Court having same or lesser number of Judges.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 25th November 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 19814 of 2021 (O&M), whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) dated 15th September 2020, came to be allowed.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

3.1 By a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “1894 Act”) dated 17th November 2004, the land of the appellants admeasuring 8 Kanal 17 Marla of village Majri, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar was acquired for Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway. By an award dated 1st March 2006, a compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- per acre was determined.

3.2 Aggrieved by the said award, similarly circumstanced land-owners preferred a reference for enhancement of compensation before the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. Vide order dated 17th January 2012, the said reference was dismissed.

3.3 The said land-owners preferred a Regular First Appeal (RFA) being No. 429 of 2013 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Vide judgment and order dated 2nd May 2016, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the said RFA and enhanced the compensation to Rs.19,91,300/- along with statutory benefits.

3.4 Immediately thereafter the appellants on 30th June 2016 filed an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act before the LAC, Jhajjar as reference was not filed by the appellants.

3.5 Vide order dated 15th September 2020, the LAC held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the judgment and order of the High Court in RFA No. 429 of 2013 dated 2nd May 2016 and enhanced the compensation payable to the appellants to Rs.19,91,300/- per acre along with statutory benefits as awarded by the High Court to the similarly circumstanced land-owners.

3.6 Being aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 preferred a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court vide impugned judgment and order, relying on its earlier judgment in CWP No. 8456 of 2020 titled “Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Smt. Shanti and Others” decided on 6th September 2021, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 15th September 2020 passed by the LAC. In its earlier judgment, the High Court has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court including the case of Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2018) 16 SCC 445 : 2018 INSC 405 whereby this Court has held that the application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act can only be filed within a period of three months from any judgment of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, arising from the same acquisition but not from the date of judgment of this Court or the High Court.

3.7 Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants have approached this Court.

4. We have heard Shri Piyush Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Rajat Sangwan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the High Court has erred in relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai (supra), inasmuch as the said judgment does not take into consideration the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 736 : 1995 INSC 180. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the High Court has rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai (supra). He, therefore, submits tha