PREM PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Joint Organization), Aligarh dtd. 30/4/2022, rejecting the petitioner's application under Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') as not maintainable.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner, Prem Pal Singh moved an application under Sec. 28A of the Act on 4/8/1999 saying that his land comprising Khasra No. 404/1, measuring 1.533 hectares, situate in the Revenue Village Devsaini, Pargana and Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh had been acquired by the State for planned industrial development by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur. L.A.R. No. 42 of 1996, Mohd. Salim vs. State of U.P. and others, being a reference made by the Collector on the basis of objections to the award by the ousted landholder in that case, was allowed and compensation enhanced to ?80/- per square yard vide award dtd. 22/5/1999. It was prayed that the petitioner's land was covered by the same notification and, therefore, he was entitled to a re-determination of the compensation awarded to him in accordance with the award made by the Court.

(3.) The Special Land Acquisition Officer found on facts that the petitioner had said in Paragraph No.6 of his application under Sec. 28A of the Act that against the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, he had preferred objections under Sec. 18 of the Act, submitting them for the purpose of a reference to be made to the Court but his objections were not referred to the District Judge, but were rejected as time barred. The Special Land Acquisition Officer construed the provisions of Sec. 28A of the Act to mean that a person, whose land was acquired under the provisions of the Act and who is aggrieved against the Collector's award, may make an application for re-determination of compensation if he has not made an application under Sec. 18 for a reference to the Court against the award. It has been opined that since the petitioner had admittedly made an application, seeking a reference against the Special Land Acquisition Officer's award to the Court, which was withheld on the ground of limitation, his application under Sec. 28A of the Act was not maintainable.