SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 673

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, JJ.
Ram Bhul – Petitioner
Versus
State Of UP And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 11036 of 2024, WRIT - C No. - 11042 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Amit Kumar Rajput, Shailesh Upadhyay
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Mansoj Kumar Singh

IMPORTANT POINT
The limitation period for filing applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is strictly three months from the date of the reference court's award, with no provision for extension based on equitable grounds.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 28A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 28A, 4, 6, 11, 18 - The court interpreted Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates a three-month limitation period for filing applications for re-determination of compensation based on court awards. The court emphasized that this period cannot be extended and that applications must be filed within the statutory timeframe. The court's decision was influenced by precedents establishing that the limitation period begins from the date of the reference court's award, not from subsequent appellate decisions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the rejection of their applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Additional District Magistrate, which were deemed barred by limitation. The petitioners claimed they were unaware of the reference court's award and filed their applications after a delay of over a year.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of the applications was lawful as they were filed beyond the three-month limitation period prescribed by Section 28A. The court held that the statutory limitation must be strictly adhered to, and no grounds for condonation of delay were applicable.

Issues: Whether the applications filed under Section 28A were barred by limitation and if the delay could be condoned based on the circumstances presented by the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the limitation period for filing applications under Section 28A is strictly three months from the date of the reference court's award. The court emphasized that the law does not allow for equitable considerations to extend this period, as established in previous Supreme Court rulings.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the applications as barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Since both the aforesaid writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law, therefore, the same are being decided by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, Writ-C No.11036 of 2024 (Ram Bhul Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others) is being treated as the leading case.

3. These two writ petitions have been filed assailing the identical orders dated 18.08.2002 whereby the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Joint Organisation, Ghaziabad has rejected the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as barred by limitation and also for not being accompanied by certified copy of the order passed in reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Act.

4. The case of the petitioner of Writ-C No.11036 of 2024 (Ram Bhul Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others) is that his father was a recorded tenure holder of land covered by various Khasaras, details whereof have been mentioned in paragraph no.5 of the said writ petition. The case of petitioner of Writ-C No.11042 of 2024 (Ramdas Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others) is that his father was a recorded tenure holder of land covered by Khasra No.318 having area 0-16-5, Khasra No.609 having area 1-1-0 and Khasra No.319 having area 0-1-6, total area 1-18-11, situated at Village Harsaon, Pargana Dasna, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad.

5. The facts of the case, as noted from the leading writ petition, are that the State Government issued a notification dated 28.12.1963 under Section 4 of the Act, which was published in daily newspapers on 04.01.1964 declaring its intention to acquire the land situated in villages Raispur, Razapur and Sinhani for the purpose of development work to be carried by Central Public Works Department. The notification was followed by another notification dated 24.07.1965 under Section 6/17(1) of the Act. The possession of the land was taken by the Government on 09.03.1973 and an award was made under Section 11 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad on 22.09.1986 declaring compensation at the rate of Rs.1.90 per square yard.

6. Being aggrieved by the award, affected persons sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. These were registered on the following number:-

(1) Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No.25 of 1987 (Ran Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.)

(2) Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No.26 of 1987 (Ganga Ram and others Vs. State of U.P.)

(3) Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No.29 of 1987 (Nathan Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.)

(4) Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No.27 of 1987 (Ram Kishan Vs. State of U.P.)

(5) Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No.30 of 1987 (Khoob Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.)

7. The aforesaid land references were decided by the Additional District Judge, 5, Ghaziabad by common judgment dated 30.03.1991 whereby the compensation was enhanced from Rs.1.90 per square yard to Rs.8 per square yard and the claimants were held entitled for additional compensation, solatium as well as statutory interest. Against the order of reference court dated 30.03.1991, three land owners filed first appeals before this Court, description whereof is given below:-

(1) First Appeal No.809 of 1993 (Ran Singh Vs. State of U.P.);

(2) First Appeal Defective No.322 of 1992 (Converted as regular First Appeal No.388 of 2015) (Nathan Singh & others Vs. State of U.P.; and

(3) First Appeal Defective No.248 of 1992, (Converted as regular First Appeal No.357 of 2016) (Ganga Ram and others Vs. State of U.P.).

8. It is further pleaded that the State Government also filed five first appeals before this Court against the same order dated 30.03.1991, as detailed below:-

(1) First Appeal Defective No.612 of 1991 (Converted as regular First Appeal No.1140 of 2003) (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ran Singh);

(2) First A

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top