ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
BINDESHWARI PRASAD AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Land Acquisition No. 130 of 2013, decided on 22nd November, 2013)
Result; Petition Allowed.
By the Court.—The application submitted by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. From the impugned order of the Collector, Gonda dated 30 September 2013, it appears that there was a first award dated 6 May 2010 and a subsequent award dated 28 February 2011. The Collector was of the view that there was no justification for the petitioners not to submit an application under Section 28-A of the Act 1894 within 90 days of the first award.
2. It is not in dispute that the application submitted on 13 May 2011 was within 90 days of the subsequent award. The position in law is governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari and others, AIR 1995 SC 2259, wherein it has been held as follows :
“Since the cause of action for moving the application for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A arises from the award on the basis of which re-determination of compensation is sought, the principle that “once the limitation begins to run, it runs in its full course until its running is interdicted by an order of the Court” can have no application because the limitation for moving the application under Section 28-A will begin to run only from the date of the award on the basis of which re-determination of compensation is sought.”
3. In view of the clear position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the Collector, Gonda was in error in rejecting the application under Section 28-A on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Undoubtedly, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 28-A is mandatory but, as the Supreme Court has noted, where an application for enhancement is made on the basis of a particular award, there was no reason to reject it on the ground that it was not made within 90 days of the first award.
4. In the circumstances, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 30 September 2013 and restore Case No. 58/2012-13 to the file of the Collector, Gonda who shall proceed to dispose of the application under Section 28-A of the Act 1894 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is produced on record.
5.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.