AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CERTAIN land belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the respondent-State of Punjab way back in 1984. The award was announced by the Collector fixing Rs. 30,000/- per acre, as compensation for the acquired land. On a reference claimed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') by certain other persons whose land had also been acquired, the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 19-9-1989, enhanced, the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,600/ along with interest and solatium as per the statute The petitioners who had not sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act thereafter moved an application some time in January 1991 under Section 28-A of the Act praying that they be given compensation at the rate fixed by the Additional District Judge. The Collector vide the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 3-5-1991 disposed of the application as being time barred The present petition has been directed against the order Annexure P-1.

(2.) IT has been urged by the respondent State counsel Shri N. S. Bhoparai, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, that the order of the Collector (Annexure P-1) was in accordance with law as the; application und Section 28-A of the Act was required to have been made within a period of three months from the award of the Additional District Judge and that the said application having been filed long after the period had expired, was clearly time barred. In support of his stand that the application could not be entertained, he has cited Mohinder Nath v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Revenue Department Punjab Government, Chandigarh, (1992-1) 101 P. L. R. 236, wherein it has been held that while discussing the scope of Section 28-A of the Act that the application for redetermining the amount of compensation by the Court was required to be made within three months from the date of the award. Admittedly, in the present case the application was made some time in January, 1991. In view of the law, I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed as such. However, it is made clear that should the compensation awarded in respect of the acquired land be enhanced by the High Court or by the Supreme Court at a later stage, the petitioners would be at liberty to file another application under Section 28-A of the Act for determining the amount of compensation and dismissal of the present application would not constitute a bar to that effect.