Benefit under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, extends to enhancements granted by High Courts or the Supreme Court, not just Reference Courts, to ensure parity among similarly situated landowners, with limitation starting from the date of the appellate judgment.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of the present petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ:

i) In the nature of certiorari for quashing of the orders dated 21.05.2013 (Annexure P-2) and 04.09.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.1 i.e. Land Acquisition Collector-cum-DRO, Kaithal whereby applications preferred at the instance of petitioner(s)-landowner(s) under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’).

ii) In the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release compensation for the acquired land of the petitioner as per judgment dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioner-landowner forming part of revenue estate of village Azeemgarh, Tehsil Gulha, District Kaithal came to be acquired for public purpose namely, “BML Hansi Branch Butana Branch Multi Purpose Link Channel” vide notifications dated 18.08.2005 and 13.09.2005 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively. Award under Section 11 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 27.12.2005 whereby, the market value was assessed @ Rs.7,50,000/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi land and @ Rs.15,00,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land besided all other statutory benefits.

Being dissatisfied with the determination of compensation, some of the other landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act which were partly accepted vide award dated 02.01.2009 and the market value with respect to chahi/nehri nature of land was enhanced to Rs.9,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved thereby, the said award dated 02.01.2009 was assailed before this Court which, vide judgment dated 23.03.2011 further enhanced the market value to Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri kind of land while maintaining the compensation awarded for gair mumkin category of land. Based upon the determination made by this Court, the petitioner-landowner preferred an application under Section 28-A of the Act before respondent No.1 on 14.06.2011, i.e., within a period of three months from the date of the judgment rendered by this Court. However, the said application came to be rejected on the ground of limitation, while also observing that the benefit under Section 28-A of the Act could be claimed only on the basis of the original award passed by the learned Reference Court.

In the meanwhile, still aggrieved by the determination made by this Court, certain landowners preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 3934–3951 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27646–27663 of 2011) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which vide judgment dated 12.03.2014 further enhanced the compensation from Rs.9,50,000/- to Rs.11,00,000/- per acre, without interfering with the compensation awarded for gair mumkin category of land. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner again invoked the provisions of Section 28-A of the 1894 Act on the strength of the aforesaid judgment dated 12.03.2014; however, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner-landowner instituted execution proceedings on 16.09.2015 seeking enforcement of the judgment dated 12.03.2014 but since no effective relief could be secured therefrom, the said execution petition ultimately came to be withdrawn and dismissed as such.

In the aforesaid circumstances, ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that no efficacious statutory remedy now survives to the petitioner, thereby necessitating invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the orders dated 12.05.2013 and 04.09.2015 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector dismissing the application under Section 28-A of the Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-landowner.

The observation made by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned orders to the effect that the petitioner-landowner could