Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides a statutory remedy for land owners to apply for re-determination of compensation if the market value assessed by the court is more than that assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal. J.(Oral) - Through this writ petition, the petitioner-UOI assails the correctness of an award dated 30.10.2020 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the exercise of its powers under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894').

2. Section 28-A provides that if a land owner do not apply for reference under Section 18 of the Act and in pursuance of reference to the court at the behest of other owners, the market value of the land has been assessed to be more than what has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, then such land owner who did not seek reference u/s 18 can apply for re-determination claiming parity. In other words, if on the application of the other land owners the court enhances the market value when compared with the assessment of the Land Acquisition Collector, then the land owner who did not apply for reference under Section 18 of the Act, can subsequently apply for re-determination, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions Lald down under Section 28-A (1). In the considered view of the Court, any party aggrieved of such re-determination has a statutory remedy under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act. Section 28-A(3) provides that any person who has not accepted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector under sub-section (2) may by written application apply to the Collector to refer the matter to the Court.

3. Section 28-A is extracted as under:-

28-A. 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 Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 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 Section 18, by written application 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 re-determined 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 sub-section, 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 inquiry 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 reference under Section 18.

4. Thus, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of seeking reference under Section 28-A (3).

5. Learned senior counsel submits that Section 28-A is not applicable as the private respondents had applied for a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 and therefore, the remedy under Section 28-A was available to the respondents. He further submits that the order in question has been passed pursuant to the direction issued by the Court in CWP-6009-2020. He further submits that the petitioner had objected to the award of the amount, however, those objections have not been considered. The petitioner had also requested the Collector to direct the owners to produce the copies of the various applications filed by them seeking references under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. He in support thereof, relies upon a judgment passed in Babua Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh' (1995) 2 SCC 689.

6.