LAWS(ALL)-1991-9-57

PARVATI Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On September 13, 1991
PARVATI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question to be decided in these petitions is : what is the date of the award within the meaning of Section 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 there from. They are these. By virtue of an award given under Section 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 Section 18, was awarded a higher sum as compensation by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, on 6th May, 1989. On 1st February, 1991, the Petitioners acquired knowledge of the said award of the Court. On 7th February, 1991, the made an application under Section 28 -A.

(3.) SECTION 28 -A has been inserted into the Act by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 68 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). Prior to the enforcement of the Amending Act, any person interested, who felt dissatisfied, inter alia, by the amount of compensation offered by the Collector under Section 11, could make an application to the said officer within a specified time repairing a reference being made to the Court for adjudication (Section 18). An applicant, referred to in Section 18). alone was entitled to receive a higher compensation, if awarded by the Court. Thus, a person, though not satisfied with the amount of compensation offered by the Collector, having failed to apply for a reference under Section 18 had not only to rest content with the amount offered but it was also deemed that he had accepted the offer.