The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prescribed period of limitation for filing applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

In this petition filed under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 1. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") qua the land of the petitioners and to award compensation @ Rs. 4 per square yard for the entire land along with all statutory benefits.

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioners/their predecessors were the owners in possession of the land situated within the revenue estate of village Ganaur, District Sonepat. Government of Haryana vide notification dated 31.12.1962 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") followed by notification dated 1.1.1963 under Section 6 of the Act acquired the said land including the land of the petitioners for Bharat Steel Tube Factory. The award was passed on 30.4.1963. Some of the landowners, filed references under Section 18 of the Act which were decided by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide award dated 25.4.1970 (Annexure P-2) by enhancing the amount of compensation. The claimants/landowners challenged the award dated 25.4.1970 (Annexure P-2) before this Court by way of appeals. This Court vide judgment dated 16.5.1978 (Annexure P-3) passed in RFA No. 249 of 1970, made enhancement @ Rs. 4 per square yard for all categories of land. Feeling aggrieved, the State filed LPA No. 331 of 1978 and this Court vide judgment dated 3.6.1981 set aside the judgment dated 16.5.1978 (Annexure P-3) and restored the award dated 25.4.1970 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional District Judge. The landowners challenged the judgment dated 3.6.1981 passed by this Court before the Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal Nos. 1663-1668 of 1982. The said appeals were allowed by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 30.7.1987 (Annexure P-4) and the judgment dated 16.5.1978 (Annexure P-3) was restored by setting aside the judgment dated 3.6.1981 passed in LPA No. 331 of 1978. In the year 1984, the Parliament amended the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 by inserting Section 28-A of the Act whereby the landowners have been given a right to get re-determination of compensation on the basis of the subsequent award of the Court. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act on 3.11.1987 before respondent No. 2 for re-determination of compensation qua their acquired land @ Rs. 4 per square yards besides other benefits as per the amended Act. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 18.7.1990 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the said application filed under Section 28-A of the Act. The petitioners challenged the said order, Annexure P-5, by way of CWP No. 16416 of 1990 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.9.2013 (Annexure P-6) and the matter was remanded to respondent No. 1 for a fresh decision. In pursuance thereto, respondent No. 1 vide order dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure P-7) dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Munshi Ram (Dead) by LRs. and Others, contended that under Section 28-A of the Act, the claimant can make a petition for re-determination of the compensation on the basis of the amount awarded by the reference court which stands modified by the superior courts. It was further submitted that in such a situation, it was not essential for the claimants to have filed a petition under Section 28-A of the Act after the decision by the reference court alone. Support was also drawn from the judgment of this Court dated 25.7.2013 passed in CWP No. 13701 of 1995 [Un