The land owners whose land had been acquired by a particular notification cannot seek condonation of undue and unexplained delay on the sole ground that another appeal out of the same acquisition is pending in this court.

R.P.SETHI and J JJ.

1. Whether a land-owner whose land has been acquired by a particular notification can seek condonation of undue and unexplained delay on the short ground that another appeal out of same acquisition is pending in this Court or should the application of such a land-owner be dismissed by the Court on the ground that another appeal out of same notification has been decided by a higher Court on merits? is the question of law referred to us for authoritative pronouncement.

2. The facts of the cases as noticed in Regular First Appeal No. 148 of 1993 and C.M. No. 207 C of 1993 are that the State of Haryana vide notification issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) acquired the land situated in the revenue estate of Darra Kalan, District Kurukshetra for the purpose of development and utilization of the same for establishment of an urban estate. Regular First Appeal No. 441 of 1991 filed by some of the claimants is admittedly pending adjudication in this Court. The appellant-applicant, in the instant case, sought the condonation of delay of 11 years in filing the appeal on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Raghbir Singh V/s. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 Cur LJ 97 wherein the delay in filing the appeal was condoned on the ground of pendency of other appeals arising out of the same notification. The learned single Judge having thoughtfully considered the rival contentions raised in this case came to the conclusion that as the question of law raised was likely to affect large number of cases, it should be authoritatively pronounced by the larger Bench.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant has contended that the law laid down in Raghbir Singhs case (supra) was based upon the appreciation of different provisions of the Act and requires no modification or reconsideration. He has particularly relied upon the provisions of Sec. 28A of the Act in support of his contention. Sec. 28A of the Act provides:

"28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Sec. 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Sec. 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Sec. 18, by written applications to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this subsection, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an enquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Sec. 18."

4. A bare perusal of the Section shows that the same is applicable only in cases where the person aggrieved had not applied to make a reference to the Court under Sec. 18 of the Act. In "The Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda V/s. Union of India, (1990) 4 JT (SC) 1, it was held as under

"It is obvious on a plain reading of subsecti