M. H. S. ANSARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has questioned the guidelines communicated by the Commissioner of Land Revenue in CLR s Ref. No. Gl/2133/96, dated 24-12-1996. The contention of the petitioner in the above writ petition is that Guideline No. 22 is the said Circular dated 24-12-1996 is contrary to law and should be declared void.

( 3 ) THE impugned Guideline No. 22 reads as under :"22. The applications for redelermination of compensation under Section 28a should be entertained only when the following conditions are satisfied. (i) The claimant should have received the amount under protest (ii) The application should be filed within 3 (three) months from the date of the award of the Court (the period for obtaining the copy of the award of the Court should be excluded) and (iii) The land should have been notified in the same notification".

( 4 ) THE offending portion of the above guideline is as contained in Clause (i) above, which states that the claimant should have received the amount "under protest" as otherwise the applications filed under Section 28a are not to be entertained.

( 5 ) THE controversy, therefore, centres around the question whether such of those applicants who otherwise satisfy the conditions stipulated under Section 28 A, their applications for redetermination of the compensation are not to be entertained unless such applicants also satisfy the condition that the compensation awarded was received by them "under protest".

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the said condition in Clause (i) contrary to the provisions contained in Section 28a of the Act and thereby illegal.

( 7 ) SRI S. Nimnjan Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioner relied upon Hukam Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1996 5 SCC 164 wherein Section 28a was considered and therein it was observed as under : "4. A reading thereof clearly indicates that after making of an award under Section 11 by the Collector, if the claimant had not made a written application under Section 18 within limitation, but one of the claimants arising out of the same notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Act, aggrieved against the award made on application and hold the reference under Section 18 and when the civil Court has enhanced the compensation, persons who did not make the applications under Section 18 and received the compensation under Section 31 without protest, Section28a (1) gives him right to make a written application under Section 28a (1) within three months from the date of the award made by the Reference Court. Under its proviso, the time taken to obtain its certified copy from the date of making the application to the date of supplying the award shall be excluded. In other words, the aggrieved persons who had received the compensation without protest but did not avail of the remedy of reference under Section 18, if one of the claimants arising from the same notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Act, had the benefit of enhanced compensation from the Reference Court, the non-applicant has been empowered under Section 28a (1) to avail of the remedy under Section 28a by an application made within three months from the date of the award of the Reference Court to seek enhanced compensation" (emphasis supplied)In another batch of appeals, the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Ram and others v. State of UP. and another, 1995 (2) SCC 689, considered the scope of Section 28a and the meaning of the "person aggrieved". It was held therein as under : ". . . . Thus, Section 28a is acomplete code in ilself providing substantive right to an interested owner who received compensation under Section 18 without protest for higher compensation, and remedy has been provided to make a written application within the prescribed period. The non-obstante clause lifts th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document