The main legal point established is the timing and conditions for making an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the duty of the respondents to make the payment of compensation as per the award.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This order of mine shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 7821, 7823, 7826, 7828, 7829, 7830, 7832, 7840 and 7824-A of 1996, in which the common questions of fact and law are involved. In these petitions, the petitioners, who are the landowners, are seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of enhanced compensation of the land in question in view of the award dated 30.3.1993, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2 herein) under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) within a specified time.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Union of India acquired a huge piece of land in different villages, including villages Bhucho Khurd and Bhucho-Kalan vide Notification dated 29.10.1976 issued under Section 4 of the Act4 for a public purpose. For that acquisition, respondent No. 2 made the award under Section 11 of the Act on 21.3.1979. Feeling aggrieved against the said award, some of the aggrieved claimants/landlords sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. However, the petitioners did not seek any reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference sought by some of the landowners was decided by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda in Mukhtiar Singh and Anr. v. Union of India, vide his award dated 7.6.1991 and the compensation payable to the landowners was enhanced.

3. The petitioners, who admittedly did not seek any reference under Section 18 of the Act, made, application under Section 28-A of the Act which was inserted in the Act by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984) for re-determination of the compensation payable to them on the basis of the award dated 7.6.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda under Section 26 of the Act being the Reference Court. The said application as allowed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30.3.1993 and the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners was re-determined according to the aforesaid award dated 7.6.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda.

4. The Union of India (respondent-herein) challenged the aforesaid award dated 30.3.1993 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector by filing C.W.P. No. 16199 of 1993 before this Court. One of the ground in the aforesaid writ petition was that an appeal against the award dated 7.6.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, filed by the Union of India for reduction of the amount of compensation was pending. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.5.1994. However, the respondent-Union of India was granted a liberty to file another writ petition on the same cause of action in case the amount of compensation payable to the landowners is reduced in the aforesaid appeal. The operative part of the order dated 24.5.1994 passed in the aforesaid writ petition is reproduced as under:-

"It has remained undisputed before us that the Land Acquisition Court in Mukhtiar Singhs case (supra) was dealing with the same acquired land which has been acquired in the present case and the notification is also similar. Statutory benefits have also been granted. Section 28-A of the Act has been enacted for the purpose of giving same amount of compensation to such land owners who did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. In view thereof, no fault can be found with the impugned award. The counsel for the petitioners has drawn the pointed attention of this Court to the pendency of the appeal against the impugned award in Mukhtiar Singhs case (supra). The counsel for the land owners, at this stage, submitted that in case the appeal of the Union of India against the original award is allowed and the compensation amount is reduced, the petitioners would be at liberty to