JUDGMENT - MARLAPALLE B.H., J.:---The application filed by the petitioners under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 20th July, 1991, on the grounds that (a) it was filed beyond limitation and (b) the Land Acquisition Officer had passed final Award on 30-6-1980 and therefore, the provisions of section 28-A of the Act were not applicable.

2. There is no dispute that the petitioners land as shown in the statement "A" to the petition memo came to be acquired for the construction of Dhamore Minor Irrigation Bank Canal as per the notification issued under section 4 of the Act on 22-8-1977. Final Award was passed on 16-9-1980 and the amount of compensation was received by the petitioners.

3. The petitioners did not apply to the Land Acquisition Officer for reference under section 18 of the Act but some other landholders, whose lands were also acquired for the said project i.e. Dhamore Minor Irrigation Tank had sought a reference under section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the reference was referred to the District Court. It was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 104 of 1983. It came to be decided on 17-6-1988.

4. The petitioners contend that they got the knowledge of the order passed by the learned District Judge enhancing the compensation amount and therefore, they submitted an application to respondent No. 2 to re-determine the compensation amount on the basis of Award passed by the learned District Judge in Land Acquisition Reference No. 104 of 1983 on 17-6-1988. This application was filed on 17-9-1985.

5. Section 28-A of the Act which came to be inserted by Act No. 68 of 1984 in the Act provides for the remedy of re-determination of compensation amount on the basis of the Award of the Court and proviso to sub-section (1) of the said section reads thus:

"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."

In the instant case, the Award was passed on 17-6-1988 and therefore, that date will stand excluded and the limitation period will commence from 18-6-1988. The petitioners submitted an application on 17-6-1988 and undoubtedly, this is within the period of limitation of three months. It is thus clear that the first ground of the impugned order is unsustainable.

6. Sub-section (1) of section 28-A of the Act states that where in any Award under this part, the Court allows 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(1) and who are also aggrieved by the Award of the Collector, may approach the Collector for re-determination of the amount on the basis of the Award passed by the Court. This section specifically refers to the Award of the Court enhancing compensation amount over and above the amount awarded by the Collector in this Award under section 11 of the Act. Thus, the cause of action to invoke the remedy under section 28-A accrues only after the District Court passes an Award in a reference made under section 18 of the Act and it does not accrue when the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector passes the Award under section 11 of the Act.

7. In the case of (Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari)1, 1995(2) S.C.C. 736, it has been held, inter alia, that a person would be able to seek re-determination of the compensation payable to him provided the following conditions are satisfied:

"(i) An Award has been made by the Court under Part III after coming into force of section 28-A;

(ii) By the said Award the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11 has been allowed to the applicant in that reference;

(iii) The person moving the applicatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document