SUDHIR DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition-petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 18.9,96 passed by the L. A .Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur, in Case No. 1(LA)/28(A)/96 rejecting the prayer of the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short, the Act, for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The case, in short, is that notification dated 9.1.89. u/s 4 of the Act was issued by the Government of Tripura in respect of various plots of land measuring about 12.66 acres. Ultimately said land was acquired. Some portions of the said acquired land belonged to the petitioners. Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 11.12.89, granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per kani of nal land and Rs. 14,000/- per kani for bastu land. Against the compensation awarded by the Collector, petitioners did not seek any reference u/s 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation granted in respect of the portions of the acquired land belonging to the petitioners. However, some other parsons who were owners of some other portions of the same acquired land sought reference u/s 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and accordingly only their cases were referred to the L.A.Judge, It may be mentioned here that the cases of the petitioners and the cases of those persons in which references were made u/s 18 of the Act on their prayer were all covered by the aforesaid notification dated 9.1.89 u/s 4 of the Act. Learned L.A. Judge ultimately enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per kani for nal land and Rs. 21,000/- per kani for bastu land with usual rate of interest and solatium. Petitioners could learn that the learned L.A.Judge passed the award on 18.6.94 in Misc. (LA) 40/92, 41/92, 45/92 and 46/92 enhancing their compensation at the aforesaid rate. Soon after that petitioners filed application u/s 28-A of the Act on 1.8.94 seeking enhancement of their compensation at the rate at which learned L.A.Judge awarded compensation to same other persons in the aforesaid L.A.Cases on a reference u/s 18 of the Act. Further case of the petitioners is that their cases as well as other cases in which learned L.A. Judge enhanced the compensation on a reference u/s 18 of the Act were all covered by the notification dated 9.1.89 issued by the Government of Tripura u/s 4 of the Act. However, learned L.A. Collector by the impugned order dated 18.9.96 passed in case No. 1/LA/28(A)/96 held that the prayer of the petitioners u/s 28- A was filed beyond the limitation of 3 months and as such he rejected the same. According to the learned L.A. Judge the earliest award passed in connection with some other cases but covered by the said notification dated 9.1.89 issued by the Government of Tripura u/s 4 of the Act was passed on 21.12.93 in Misc. L.A. 37/92, 38/92, 39/92, 42/92 and 43/92. Therefore the earliest award was passed by the learned L.A. Judge on 21.12. 93 in some other cases covered by the same notification u/s 4 of the Act. Petitioners filed their application u/s 18 of the Act only on 1.8.94 and therefore learned Collector was of the view that the application u/s 28-A was clearly barred by limitation and accordingly he dismissed the same. I have heard Mr. B. B. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. U.B.Saha, learned Government Advocate.

(3.) Petitioners alongwith their application u/s 28-A of the Act produced the award dated 9.6.94 passed by the learned L.A.Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Misc.L.A.Case Nos.40/ 92, 41/92,45/92 and 46/92 before the learned L.A.Collector. According to Mr. Deb they did not rely upon the other awards passed by the learned L.A.Judge on 21.12.93. They relied upon the award passed on 8.6.94. Petitioners filed the said application on 1.8.94. Therefore, the said application u/s 28-A was filed by them within a period of 2 months from the date of the award dated 8.6.94. relied upon by them before the learned Collector. It is submitted by Mr. Deb that they were earlier totally ignorant about any such award passed by the learned L.A.Judge dated 21.12.93. Section 28-A of the Act provides as follows: "28-A Redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court-(l) 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 the 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: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, 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 enquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and made 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".