Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act allows for re-determination of compensation based on subsequent awards, promoting equity among landowners who could not challenge earlier awards.

JUDGMENT :

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

Heard Shri Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajiv Kumar Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2-Noida.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.7.2022, which was served on the petitioners on 5.7.2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1894'), has been rejected, as not maintainable, as the said application has been filed claiming re-determination of compensation by the Collector under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 on the basis of judgement and order dated 18.4.2022 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 (Malkhan v. State of U.P.) filed by the land owners, who are covered by the same notification.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the ancestors of the petitioners were the owners of the land in Khasra No. 51 area 0-7-0 Hectares, Khasra No. 52 area 1-2-0 Hectares, Khasra No. 53 area 0-19-0 Hectares, 54 area 1-7-0 Hectares and Khasra No. 26/1 area 0-7-0 Hectares situated at Village Naya Bans, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. The aforesaid land of the petitioners was acquired in favour of the respondent No. 2-New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vide notification dated 30.4.1976 issued under Section 4(1)/17 of the Act, 1894. After the notification the award was declared on 15.2.1977 and the entire compensation in terms of the aforesaid award was received by the grandfather of the petitioner No. 7 herein and also by the ancestors of the other petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners herein did not make any reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. However, some other land owners whose land were also acquired by the same notification, had challenged the said award by making reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act 1894, which was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad vide judgement and decree dated 25.11.1981. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, an appeal under Section 54 of the Act, 1894 was filed by the said land owners being First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 (Malkhan v. State of U.P.). The said First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 was decided by this Court vide order dated 18.4.2022, relying upon the judgement and order dated 8.7.2019 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 593 of 1982, whereby the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 28.12 per square yard alongwith 30% solatium and other benefits as per the provisions of the Act.

4. In terms of the aforesaid award made in the First Appeal vide order dated 18.4.2022, the petitioners herein had filed an application under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 on 23.5.2022. Since, no order was passed on the said application under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 by the respondents, the petitioners herein filed Writ C No. 21023 of 2022, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 9.4.2024, whereby a direction was issued to the respondent to decide the said application expeditiously preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of the said order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the order dated 9.4.2024 was communicated to the respondents, the impugned order dated 29.7.2022 has been served on the petitioners on 5.7.2024 whereby the application under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 filed by the petitioners have been rejected as not maintainable as the same has been filed on the basis of the decision passed in the first appeal and not on the basis of an order passed by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case the reference filed by one said Malkhan under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, being the Land Acquisition Reference No. 95 of 1977 was rejected by t