The court emphasized the importance of exercising the right under Section 18 or Section 28A of the Act of 1894 and highlighted the need for evidence to determine the applicability of the award of the Reference Court to the petitioners' claim for compensation.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition)/ (Housing), Kanpur Nagar, rejecting the petitioners' application for enhancement of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’). A further writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the award dated 25.01.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.257/70 of 1993 and in view of the revised award dated 24.09.2009 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Housing), Kanpur Nagar.

2. The petitioners essentially claim to exercise their right under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 on the ground that they have not challenged the Collector's award through a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, but sought re-determination of the same under Section 28-A, based on the revised award dated 24.09.2009 relating to the same acquisition for some landholders.

3. As application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 preferred by the petitioners was not decided for a long time and they filed Writ -C No.33973 of 2012 for a direction to the Collector to decide the application. The application was directed to be decided vide order dated 15.09.2016 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The order was not complied with, leading to initiation of proceedings for contempt. After contempt proceedings were initiated, the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) proceeded to reject the application vide order dated 20.03.2017 holding that the petitioners' claim for enhancement under Section 28-A of the Act 1894 was not tenable.

4. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed Writ -C No. 17190 of 2017. This Court vide order dated 23.10.2019 observed that in the order dated 20.03.2017, there is reference to a report/ letter dated 17.01.2017, which was not supplied to the petitioners. The order of the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) was, therefore, set aside with a direction to supply the report dated 17.01.2017 to the petitioners within a month and decide afresh. The District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 20/21.10.2020 again rejected the petitioners' claim under Section 28-A of the Act on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to review his earlier dated 20.03.2017. This order dated 20/21.10.2020 was challenged by the petitioners through Writ - C No.26177 of 2020 before this Court.

5. The order of the District Magistrate dated 20/21.10.2020 was quashed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.01.2021 passed in Writ – C No. 26177 of 2020 and the matter was remitted back to the District Magistrate, requiring him to pass fresh orders after considering all objections raised by the petitioners. Upon determining the matter remanded by this Court, the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar held that the award dated 24.09.2009 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, ‘the SLAO’) was confined to those parties, who had litigated before this Court and the Supreme Court, and not the other land oustees. The writ petitioners were not petitioners in the writ petitions that were earlier filed before this Court challenging the concerned land acquisition notifications. It was also opined that the Act of 1894 makes provision for a reference to be sought by a landholder, if he is aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Collector, under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Those landholders, who do not exercise their right under Section 18, upon pronouncement of award by the Reference Court relating to the same notification at the instance of other landholders, can apply within three months under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894. It was held that the petitioners neither applied under Section 18 nor under Section 28A. The representation, that they preferred on 01.02.2021 in compliance with this Court’s order dated