The limitation period for seeking redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act begins from the date of the original court's award, not from appellate decisions.

ORDER :

P.T. Asha, J.

Challenging the rejection of her application claiming enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1984, on the ground of limitation, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The short facts, which forms the prelude for the filing of this writ petition, are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner, who is represented by his wife and Guardian on the ground that the petitioner is an idiot, would submit that the petitioner/her husband is the owner of an extent of 1 acre and 34 cents and 72 cents in R.S.Nos.653/2 and 652/1 respectively totally measuring an extent of 2 acres and 4 cents, at Manavalakurichi Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

2.2. It is her case that these lands along with the other lands were notified under Section 4(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (herein after referred to as Act). The lands were acquired for the third respondent by the second respondent. An award was passed in Award No.4/81-82 awarding compensation of Rs. 57,101.80/- to the petitioner for the acquisition of his lands and other land owners were also given compensation for their lands that had been acquired. Since the compensation granted was very low, some of the land owners had sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and number of LAOPs came to be filed in LAOP.No.7 of 1981 and other LAOPs. The third respondent had got itself impleaded in these litigations as per the order of this Court and a common judgment came to be passed on 14.06.2002 enhancing the compensation to a sum of Rs.1,000/- per cent.

3. Challenging the said order, the third respondent had preferred A.S.Nos. 855 of 2002 and 106 to 111 of 2003 on the file of this Court. By judgment dated 26.09.2008, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, as a result the compensation arrived at by the learned Judge in the LAOPs reached finality. The petitioner would submit that her husband has not sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and therefore, after the withdrawal of the appeals by the third respondent, a written representation on behalf of the petitioner was presented on 03.11.2008 under Section 28A of the Act to the respondents requesting redetermination of the amount of compensation payable to him on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court.

4. The second respondent by an order dated 26.11.2008 informed the petitioner that since no petition under Section 18 (1) of the Act has been filed at the time of payment of compensation amount, enhanced compensation cannot be paid. This order was challenged by the petitioner representing by his wife in W.P. (MD) No.445 of 2009. By an order dated 01.04.2016, the said writ petition was allowed. The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the second respondent directing the second respondent to pass orders strictly on the basis of the provisions of Section 28A of the Act within a period of 3 months. Thereafter, the order was produced before the second respondent together with representation dated 02.05.2016 and the second respondent was asked to reconsider and pass orders. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the request was rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner passed away and his legal representative including his wife as Guardian was brought on record.

5. The third respondent has filed a counter inter alia contending that the order of the second respondent cannot be found fault with, since the petitioner has not filed a petition under Section 28A of