VISHAV BANDHU GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A large tract of land situate in village Dara Kalan in the district of Kurukshetra was acquired by the State of Haryana. The land acquisition collector gave an award on 16/7/95. By the said award, the land acquisition collector offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 3. 00 per square yard. The appellants herein accepted the award and did not go for reference for enhancement of the compensation. In the meantime, certain other claimants whose land were also acquired, sought reference for enhancement of compensation before the district judge. In those cases, the district judge enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 71. 00 per square yard. The claimants thereafter, preferred regular first appeal before the High Court for further enhancement of compensation. The High Court enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 37. 00 per square yard by the judgment dated 14.3.90. It is at this stage the appellants herein woke up and filed an application under section 28a of the Land Acquisition Act before the land acquisition officer praying therein that in view of the judgment of the High Court dated 14.3.1990 enhancing the compensation to the other claimants at the rate of Rs. 37. 00 per square yard, he may also be given the same rate of compensation. The land acquisition collector rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred a revision petition before the High Court, but the same was dismissed. It is against the said judgment the appellants have filed this appeal.

(2.) A short question that arises in this case is as to whether the appellants, who accepted the award given by the land acquisition collector, can be permitted to file an application under section 28a of the act for grant of higher rate of compensation as has been granted by the High court in case of other claimants. This question stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Bhagti (Smt. ) (Deceased) through her Lrs. Jagdish Ram Sharma v. State of Haryana [jt 1997 (2) SC 291] wherein it was held that where a claimant has not sought for reference to the district judge is not entitled to file an application under section 28a of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant did not seek any reference to the district judge for enhancement of compensation and as the appellant is not entitled to file application under section 28a of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagti (Smt. ) does not lay down the correct view of law and therefore, the same is required to be reconsidered by a bench of three judges. Nothing substantial has been pointed out by the learned counsel which may persuade us to hold that the decision by this Court in Bhagti's case [jt 1997 (2) SC 291] is not correctly decided and it requires reconsideration by a bench of three judges. We, therefore, reject the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) Following the decision in Bhagti (Smt. ) (deceased) through her Lrs. Jagdish Ram Sharma [jt 1997 (2) SC 291], we do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.