RAM DAS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have assailed the order dated 15.3.1995 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad whereby the application of the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected on the ground that the application of the petitioners moved under Section 18 of the Act for reference has been rejected.

(2.) WE have heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Hansoli Devi and Ors., reported in JT 2002 (7) SC 42, that since the application of the petitioners under section 18 of the Act was found to be incompetent, therefore, the rejection thereof will amount to no application having been entertained under section 18 of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in effect it will be presumed that there was no application under Section 18 of the Act entertainable in law and in fact also the petitioners were not extended any benefit of reference under section 18 of the Act. In such circumstances the petitioners are entitled to move an application under Section 28A of the Act and having received the compensation awarded without protest will not disentitle them to move such an application.