Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner-Union of India has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 28.10.1997 (Annexure P-3), passed by Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar, respondent No. 5 herein, vide which he had re-determined the compensation payable to respondent No. 1 to 4 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1984) in the light of the award dated 19.1.1985, passed by the Arbitrator cum Additional District Judge, Bathinda.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner acquired a big chunk of land belonging to various land owners for establishment of the Cantonment area at Bathinda, vide notification dated 20.1.1975 issued under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952). In the said acquisition, 77 bighas 17 biswas of land belonging to Natha Singh, predecessor of respondents No. 1 to 4 was also acquired and award to the said acquisition was made on 6.3.1975 by the competent authority. Feeling dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the various land owners sought reference to the Arbitrator. Their matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The learned Additional District Judge Bathinda, while exercising the power of Arbitrator, enhanced the market value of the acquired land substantially vide award dated 19.1.1985. Since the predecessor of respondents No. 1 to 4 did not seek any reference against he award passed by the competent authority initially, they filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1984 on 12.4.1985 for re-determination of the compensation in terms of the award dated 19.1.1985 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Additional District Judge, Bathinda. This application was, however, dismissed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 5, vide his order dated 23.12.1985 on the ground that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act of 1984 are not applicable on the acquisition of the land under the Act of 1952.

3. The said order was challenged by respondents No. 1 to 4 in this Court by filing Civil Revision No. 1188 of 1986. After hearing the parties, the said revision petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated July 15, 1987 (Annexure P-2). While relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Krishan Khosla and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors. A.I.R. 1975 Punjab and Haryana 74, it was held that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act of 1984 are applicable on the acquisition made under the Act of 1952 and the land owners are entitled to claim compensation by resorting to re-determination under Section 28-A of the Act of 1984. Consequently, the order of rejection of application of respondents No. 1 to 4 under Section 28-A of the Act of 1984 was set aside and respondent No. 5 was directed to redetermine compensation, to which respondents No. 1 to 4 were found entitled on the basis of the award dated 19.1.1985 passed by the learned Arbitrator on the reference made by other land owners. This order passed by this Court was not challenged by the petitioner and the same became final between the parties. In view of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 5 re-de-terimned the compensation payable to respondent No. 1 to 4 vide his award dated 28.10.1987 (Annexure P-3), which has been challenged by the petitioner Union of India in this writ petition.

4. The aforesaid order dated 28.10.1987 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the predecessor of respondents No. 1 to 4, Shri Natha Singh (who expired on 12,6.1984) had accepted the compensation, initially determined by respondent No. 5, by executing agreement on form K (Annexure P-1) on 23.8.1975 and received the compensation amount. Therefore, respondents No. 1 to 4, who are legal representatives of said Natha