Claimants can maintain applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even if they had previously filed reference applications under Section 18, as long as the reference applications were not considered and decided on merits.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

2. In these two Petitions, the question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the respondents No.3 and 4 in both the Petitions were entitled for consideration of their applications filed before the respondent No.2 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for re-determination of amount of compensation. The petitioner Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, the acquiring body has raised serious objection to the very maintainability of the said applications filed on behalf of the said respondents (original claimants), on the ground that since they had preferred applications for reference to the Court under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act and they had subsequently withdrawn such applications unconditionally, their applications for re-determination of amount of compensation under Section 28-A of the aforesaid Act were not maintainable. The respondent No.2 in the present case not only entertained the said applications, but also passed orders re-determining the amount of compensation in favour of the said respondent - claimants. No arguments were raised on behalf of the petitioner Corporation on merits of the redetermined amounts.

3. The facts leading up to filing of the present Writ Petitions are that lands belonging to the said claimants were acquired from district Buldhana for certain projects of the petitioner – Corporation. In pursuance of the land acquisition proceedings, final Awards were issued by the respondent No.2 and amount of compensation payable to the aforesaid claimants was determined. There is no dispute about the fact that the aforesaid claimants preferred reference applications under Section 18 of the said Act. The said claimants raised claims of higher quantum of compensation on the basis of contentions raised on their behalf. It is also not disputed that subsequently, the claimants withdrew their reference applications and the reference Court passed specific orders allowing the claimants to withdraw the reference applications, recording that the proceedings stood disposed of as withdrawn unconditionally.

4. Thereafter, the reference Court passed its final judgments and orders in reference applications filed by other claimants, similarly situated like the respondent - claimants herein and granted enhancement of compensation to a certain extent. There is also no dispute about the fact that such judgments and orders or Awards passed by the reference Court attained finality. The respondent - claimants herein, at this stage, filed applications for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the aforesaid Act, on the basis of the aforesaid Awards passed by the reference Court in the case of similarly situated claimants.

5. Initially, such applications filed by the respondent – claimants stood dismissed by orders passed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that the said respondents had already taken benefit of rehabilitation compensation under Government schemes. The respondent – claimants challenged the said orders before this Court. The Writ Petitions were allowed and this Court held that the respondent - claimants could not be deprived consideration of their applications under Section 28-A of the said Act in accordance with law, only on the ground that they had received rehabilitation compensation under the Government schemes. Accordingly, the matters were sent back to the respondent No.2 for consideration afresh. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 considered the applications of the respondents – claimants and passed orders in their favour. These orders were in turn challenged by the petitioner – Corporation on the ground that it was not granted proper opportunity of hearing, despite the fact that the financial burden of payment of compensation was on the petitioner – Corporation. The Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner – Corporation were allowed a