The modified award dated 5 September, 1994, superseded the original award dated 15 February, 1984, by application of the doctrine of merger. The Collector's rejection of the petitioners' application under section 28A(1) was illegal and set aside. The applications were restored to the file of the Collector for further processing in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 28A of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

A short but interesting question arises for consideration in this batch of petitions, in regard to the applicability of section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the land acquisition award is a modified award of the Reference Court.

2. Learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem on the commonality of the facts in relation to this batch of petitions. Hence, Writ Petition No. 6747 of 2009 was considered as the lead petition as also arguments were advanced on this petition, so as to cover all the petitions. The factual antecedents which lie in a narrow compass are not in dispute. The following facts as referred in the lead petition, are being noted :-

The lands of the petitioners were subject-matter of acquisition, for the public purpose of “Submergence of Ujjani Project”. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 9 October, 1969 to include several lands. Following the legal procedure, the land acquisition proceedings concluded in a common award dated 30 November, 1974 published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short “SLAO”), under section 11 of the Act, which was to the following effect :-

“26. AWARD - I hereby declare the award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, under my own hand and certify that :-

1. The true area of the lands under this award. A. G.

1554-00 H.A.

628-26

2. The total amount of Compensation Rs. 12,81,341-26

3. The total amount of compensation will be apportioned as per statement “A” attached to this award.

The lands will west in Government free from all encumbrances. In addition, amount of Rs.625-00 will be paid as measurement fee by the Acquiring Body and credited to Government.”

3. Some of the claimants (Keshav Krishaj Ajotikar and others) being aggrieved by the SLAO’s Award, made an application to the Collector under section 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. Such an application was referred by the Collector for adjudication by the Competent Court, being the Court of District Judge at Pune. The proceeding was numbered as Reference Application No. 8 of 1979. The learned Extra Joint District Judge, Pune, decided such Reference by judgment and order dated 15 February, 1984 in the following terms :-

“The claimant is entitled and be paid an amount of Rs. 72807.07P as enhanced compensation. He is also entitled to an amount of interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of dispossession till payment. Parties to bear the costs in proportion to their success or failure.”

4. During the pendency of the said reference before the Reference Court, the Central Government having regard to the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution and to promote public welfare to bring about an equitable and indiscriminate payment of compensation between persons who are similarly situated, under the same land acquisition notification and in recognizing the sacrifice they make in the larger public interest, introduced a bill dated 30 September, 1982 before the Parliament to amend the Act, by inter alia incorporating section 28A. Such amendment was intended considering the stark realities, that many poor and inarticulate owners of acquired land were not usually taking advantage of making a reference provided by section 18 of the Act, to seek an enhanced/adequate compensation for their acquired lands. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill described the intention for the proposed legislation in the following words :-

“Considering that the right of reference to the civil Court under section 18 of the Act is not usually taken advantage by poor and inarticulate and is usually exercised only by the comparatively affluent land owners and that this causes considerable inequality in the payment of compensation for the same or similar quality of land to different interested persons, it was proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same Notific