BHABUT MAL JAIN Vs. LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's application for re -determination of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the 'Act') on the basis of order passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Nawapara in M. J. C. No. 29 of 1989 which was confirmed by this Court in F. A. No. 361 of 1990 dated 2 -11 -1992, having been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, Nawapara, this Court has been moved for interference.

(2.) THE case of petitioner in short, is that A0. 99 decimals of lands owned by the petitioner were acquired for Upper Jonk Irrigation Project. He received compensation on 28 -7 -1989. Lands similarly situated, owned by others were also acquired for the aforesaid project by one notification. The other land owners disputed quantum awarded as compensation, and that is how the matter came to be adjudicated by learned Subordinate Judge and this Court. With reference to Section 28 -A of the Act, the petitioner requested the Land Acquisition Officer for re -determination of compensation. Placing reliance on a decision of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. U. P. No. 7276 of 1987 (Seburam and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Anr.), decided on 24 -10 -1991 the concerned officer held that since the amount was accepted by the petitioner without protest, benefits available Under Section 28 -A of the Act cannot be granted to the petitioner. Mr. Das for the petitioner states that a bare reading of Section 28 -A of the Act makes it clear that even if no protest is raised at the time of receipt of compensation, that cannot be a ground to refuse for re -determination when some other persons similarly situated have been granted the enhanced compensation. Learned counsel for the State supported the order submitting that absence of protest indicates acceptance and, therefore, Section 28 -A has no application.

(3.) THE expression 'persons interested' who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector, occurring in Section 28 -A of the Act cannot be equated with similar expression relating to 'person interested' as appearing in Section 18 of the Act without protest. One of the essential requirements for making an application seeking reference to the Court is that the applicant should not have received the amount of compensation otherwise under protest. The difference in: language is vital. Sec, 28 -A is not fettered by any such impediment as in the case of Section 18. It postulates re -determination of the amount of compensation of one on the basis of the award of the Court made in favour of another. The right accrues to a person whose land was acquired by the same notification Under Section 4(1), who may have been aggrieved by the award of the Collector and may not have made an application to the Collector Under Section 18.