SUKHDEO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question to be decided in these petitions is : what is the date of the award within the meaning of S. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)? As the fate of these petitions turns upon a mere interpretation of the statute, we do not consider it necessary to call for a counter-affidavit. With the consent of the Standing Counsel, we have heard these petitions with a view to dispose them of finally. We are accordingly doing so by a common judgment.

(2.) The material facts in these petitions are substantially the same. Treating the Writ petition filed by Smt. Parbati and another as the leading case, we have taken the material facts therefrom. They are these. By virtue of an award given under S. 11 the petitioners accepted the compensation offered under protest. One Surendra Singh, whose land had been acquired under the same notification under which the petitioners' land was acquired, in a reference made under S. 18, was awarded a higher sum as compensation by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, on 6/05/1989. On 1/02/1991, the petitioners acquired knowledge of the said award of the Court. on 7/02/1991, they made an application under S. 28-A.

(3.) By similar but different orders, which are being impugned in these petitions, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as the SLAO) has rejected the applications of the petitioners on the ground that the same were filed beyond the period prescribed in S. 28-A and were not accompanied by certified copy of the award given by the Court.