JUDGMENT : 

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been land to an award dated 30.08.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Reference Court, Gurgaon (for short ‘the Reference Court’).

2. Briefly stating, some land owned by the appellant/ landowner forming part of the revenue estate of Village Jharsa came to be acquired vide notifications dated 27.08.1987 and 25.08.1988 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), respectively, followed by the award dated 16.03.1989.

3. The appellant/ landowner did not file objections under Section 18 of the Act , however, based on an Award dated 06.05.1994 passed by learned Reference Court at Gurugaon, in relation to the same very acquisition, preferred application under Section 28 A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’), which was dismissed vide order dated 12.01.1996 by the LAC.

4. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/ landowner preferred reference under Section 28-A (3) of the Act which was allowed by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 20.08.1997. The appellant(s)/landowner(s) were awarded the benefit of enhanced market value on the basis of Award dated 06.051994 which was produced on record as Ex.A2. However, by preferring the present appeal, appellant/ landowner has put forth his grievance that the final determination of market value with respect to the acquisition proceedings in hand now stands re-assessed @ Rs.213/- per sq. yards in RFA No.556 of 1994, titled as Kabul Singh Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 13.05.1999, therefore, he be granted the same benefit of enhancement qua the acquisition of his land.

5. On the other hand, the prayer made herein has been opposed by learned State counsel.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

7. On a conjoint reading of the statutory scheme derived from Section 28-A of the Act, read with the exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sing Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as (2018) 11 SCC 92, and Banwari through LRs Vs. HSIIDC and another, reported as 2024 INSC 951, wherein it was held that the landowners were entitled to seek re- determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act on the basis of the final adjudication. Accordingly, the appellant/ landowner herein is entitled for award of enhancement of market value in its favour along with all statutory benefits and interest including interest on solatium in terms of decision dated 13.05.1999, passed in RFA No.556 of 1994, titled as ‘Kabul Singh Vs. State of Haryana’. Relevant paragraph Nos.15-17 of Bharat Sing’s case (supra) and that of paras 15 and 16 of Banwari’s case (supra), are reproduced hereunder-

“Bharat Sing’s case (supra)

15. In the case of the appellants, when their Section 28A application was decided, based on awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983, the very same awards were pending in appeal before the High Court. However, the Collector proceeded to consider their application and decided the same on 25.10.2000. Thereafter, fresh application under Section 28A was filed on 27.05.2009 based on the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009. It was this application that was held to be not maintainable, being a second application.

16. Though there is no quarrel with the principle that only a single application is maintainable, in the instant case, unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals on the relied on awards were pending when the Section 28A application was decided. That is the special and distinctive factual position in the instant case. It must also be kept in mind that Section 28A is a beneficial provision.

17. The Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 based on the awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was decided on 25.10.2000 when the appeals therefrom were pending. The Collector ought to have kept the application pending till the appeals