The main legal point established is that the rejection of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act does not necessarily constitute an award, and the Reference Court cannot assume the role of an Appellate Court. Additionally, the interpretation of section 28-A as a beneficial provision was emphasized.

R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) HEARD. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

( 2 ) THE petitioner challenges the order rejecting his application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" and the same was disposed of by the award dated 5-7-2003.

( 3 ) FEW facts relevant for the decision are that the property which originally belonged to the petitioner's father came to be acquired in the year 1980 and the award in that regard came to be passed on 16-3-1981. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the father of the petitioner filed an application for reference under section 18 of the said Act. However, the proceedings in the said reference were not diligently conducted on behalf of the father of the petitioner and the said reference came to be rejected under the order dated 1-4-1987. The father of the petitioner had expired on 28-2-1987. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application under section 28-A of the said Act on 2-9-2003. This application under section 28-A came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 31-3-2005. Hence the petition.

( 4 ) PLACING reliance in the decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of union of India and another vs. Hansoli Devi and others, reported in 2002 AIR scw 3755 and Khazan Singh (dead) L. Rs, vs. Union of India, reported in 2002 air SCW 356, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 1-4-1987 rejecting the reference filed by the father of the petitioner was merely on the ground of non-prosecution of the proceedings and there was no determination of the claim for enhancement of the compensation as was required under the provisions of law comprised under the said Act and the law laid down in that regard by the Apex Court. Once the proceedings were disposed of merely on the ground of non-prosecution by the authority, there is no bar for filing the application under section 28-A and in that regard also the law has been made very clear by the decision of the Apex Court in Hansoli Devi's case (supra ). The learned A. G. P. , on the other hand, referring to the order dated 1-4-1987 submitted that the reference was not rejected merely on the ground of non- prosecution as such but on account of failure on the part of the father of the petitioner to lead necessary evidence in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation and, therefore, it amounts to an award and hence disentitles the petitioner to prefer an application under section 28-A of the said Act and therefore no fault can be found with the impugned order.

( 5 ) THE fact that the father of the petitioner filed an application for reference under section 18 of the said Act is not in dispute. It is also a matter of record that such a reference was rejected by the order dated 1-4-1987. The first point, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether the order dated 1-4-1987 can be said to be an award in the reference proceedings within the meaning of the said expression under the provisions of the said Act.

( 6 ) THE section 18 of the said Act entitles the interested person to file an application for reference for enhancement of compensation and once such an application is filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the said provisions of law, the Reference Court has to deal with the said application in terms of the provisions comprised under section 20 onwards of the said Act. The section 20 clearly provides that the Court upon receipt of such application shall cause the notice to be issued specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection raised by the interested person to the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award passed under section 11 of the said Act. The section 21 provides that the scope of the inquiry in such proceedings shall be restricted to the consideration of the interest of such person affected by objection. The sections 23 and 24 pr