IMPORTANT POINT
Within three months from the date of the reference court excluding the time taken under proviso to section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the applicant whose land was acquired under the same notification but who failed to avail the remedy u/s 18, would be entitled to avail the right and remedy u/s 28A of the Act.

ORDER

This special arises from order of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on August 18, 1992 in Civil Revision No. 73 of 1991.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decision of this Court in Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.1 was referred to a Constitution Bench in Jose Antanio Cruz Dos R. Rodriqueses & Anr. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr.2 and thereafter cases with similar facts were also referred. We find that the statement is not accurate and in the facts of this case, the question does not arise. The admitted position is as under.

 3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) was published on June 26, 1973 acquiring 133.24 acres of land situated in Village Dara Kalan, District Kurukshetra for development and utilisation of the land for residential purposes. The Collector in his award dated July 17, 1975 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per square yard. The appellant did not seek any reference under Section 18. However, on reference sought by others, the District Judge in his award and decree dated October 3, 1981 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7/- per sq. yd. Dissatisfied therewith, those claimants filed appeal in the High Court. The High Court by judgment and decree dated March 14, 1990 further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 37 per sq. yd. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application within the prescribed limitation period of 30 days from the date of the judgment of the High Court under Section 28-A of the Act for payment of the enhanced compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector by Order dated September 5, 1990 dismissed the application but the District Judge re-determined the compensation by Order dated December 24, 1991. The revision application, on reference by a learned single Judge, was allowed by the Division Bench setting aside the reference Court award. Thus, this special leave.

4. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to re-determination of compensation of par with others and the question of limitation does not stand in the way. The question, therefore, is : as to when the limitation begins to run for the purpose of filing of an application under Section 28-A of the Act ? The Amendment Act 68 of 1984 introducing Section 28-A had come into force with effect from September 24, 1984. Section 28-A envisages giving of benefit to a person who had accepted the award made under Section 11 without protest and did not avail of the reference under Section 18 for further enhancement and others had the award of enhanced compensation. He has been given right to make a written application to the L.A.O. within 30 days from the date of the award of the Court excluding the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the award of the court. It is now fairly well settled legal proposition that the award of the court is the award of the reference court under Section 18. That is clear from the statement of the objects and reasons as also from the unequivocal language used in Section 28-A(1) of the Act. It is equally well settled legal position that once time has begun to run, it will continue to run until it is stayed by an appropriate court. The remedy, thereafter stands barred. The proviso to Section 28-A(1) only excludes the time actually taken in obtaining the certified copy, while computing the period of three months limitation prescribed under Section 28-A(1). In other words, the time taken to obtain certified copy alone is to be excluded in computation of limitation of three months. The reference is Jose Antonio s case was confined to the question as to which of the two awards, when there are more than one award passed by the reference Court in respect of the land covered under the same notification published under Section 4(1), would give cause of action and to the question limitation to file application under Section 28-A(1). In other words, the question therein was which of the two