BHOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner has prayed for enhancement of compensation under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 before the Collector, Distt. Sagar. Compensation has been enhanced in the case of others in respect of the land under same acquisition by the reference court on reference sought by others in reference case Nos. 1 -A/99 and 2 -A/99 as per award dated 7 -1 -2000. The petitioner applied to the Collector for enhancement of compensation on the basis of award of reference court. The application is obviously, under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated at bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Collector has not so far decided the application P/5, moved for enhancement of compensation under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under: 28A. Re -determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court - - (1) Where in an award under this Part, the court allows to the applicant, any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub -section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector, may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court:

(2.) PROVIDED that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this subsection, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub -section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub -section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter, be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.

(3.) THE question whether a person having received the compensation with or without protest, can be said to be a person aggrieved under section 28A of the Act was referred to the larger bench by the Apex Court. It has been answered in Union of India and another vs. Hansoli Devi and others, : (2002)7 SCC 273. The Apex Court has held that where a person who has not made an application to the Collector under section 18, then irrespective of whether he had received, with or without protest, the compensation pursuant to the award of Land Acquisition Officer, he would be a "person aggrieved" entitled to make an application under section 28A of the Act. The Apex Court has answered this question in paragraph 11 of the judgment, thus; 11. Coming to the second question for reference the receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application under section 28A, if a person has not filed an application under section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collector with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 28A and would be entitled to make an application when some other landowner's application for reference is answered by the reference court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of section 28A of the Act. Otherwise, it would amount to adding one more condition, not contemplated or stipulated by the legislature itself to deny the benefit of substantial right conferred upon the owner. In the instant case, it is stated that the application has been filed within the limitation i.e. within three months from the date of award, this fact has to be considered by the Collector. Application is stated to be pending for consideration. Collector is bound to decide the same in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Hansoli Devi (supra).