UNION OF INDIA Vs. JASMEL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-Union of India has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 28.10.1997 (Annexure P-3), passed by Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar, respondent No. 5 herein, vide which he had re-determined the compensation payable to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 under, Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1984') in the light of the award dated 19.1.1985, passed by the Arbitrator cum Additional District Judge, Bathinda.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner acquired a big chunk of land belonging to various land owners for establishment of the Cantonment area at Bathinda, vide notification dated 20.1.1975 issued under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952'). In the said acquisition, 77 bighas 17 biswas of land belonging to Natha Singh, predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was also acquired and award to the said acquisition was made on 6.3.1975 by the competent authority. Feeling dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the various land owners sought reference to the Arbitrator. Their matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, while exercising the power of Arbitrator, enhanced the market value of the acquired land substantially vide award dated 19.1.1985. Since the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 did not seek any reference against he award passed by the competent authority initially, they filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1984 on 12.4.1985 for re-determination of the compensation in terms of the award dated 19.1.1985 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Additional District Judge, Bathinda. This application was, however, dismissed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 5, vide his order dated 23.12.1985 on the ground that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act of 1984 are not applicable on the acquisition of the land under the Act of 1952.

(3.) THE aforesaid order dated 28.10.1987 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Shri Natha Singh (who expired on 12.6.1984, had accepted the compensation, initially determined by respondent No. 5, by executing agreement on form 'K' (Annexure P-1) on 23.8.1975 and received the compensation amount. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are legal representatives of said Natha Singh, were not entitled to file application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1984 for re-determination of the compensation in view of the award made by the Arbitrator on reference of other land owners.