PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 09.04.1993 Annexure P-3 vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was declined for the reasons that against the award of the Reference Court, the appeal filed by the State was pending in this Court and the award of the Reference Court which was relied upon had not attained finality. Annexure-P5 the communication dated 9.2.1995 is also under challenge vide which the application filed by the petitioner for reference of dispute to the Court was 'filed'. Further prayer is for a direction to the respondent No.2 to dispose of the application Annexure-P4 filed by the petitioner under Sec. 28A(3) of the Act, for referring the dispute to the Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land owned by the petitioner was sought to be acquired by the State vide notification dated 23.5.1983 issued under Sec. 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') announced the award on 17.3.1986 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 48000.00 per acre. The petitioner could not file objections, however, other land owners filed objections which were referred to the Court. The learned Additional District Judge, Hissar, vide award dated 30.11.1991 assessed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per square yard. The petitioner filed application under Sec. 28A of the Act for awarding same compensation as was given to the other land owners. The same was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the award of the Reference Court was under challenge before this Court and the same had not yet attained finality. Even the application filed by the petitioner thereafter for referring the dispute to the Court was 'filed'. Impugning the action of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sec. 28A was inserted in the Act only to give right to the land owners, who had not filed any application initially under Sec. 18 of the Act, to seek re-determination of compensation in terms of the amount awarded by the Court. However, the application filed by the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the Collector opining that the award of the Court was under challenge in this Court. The right course at that time was to keep the application pending till such time the matter attained finality and not to dismiss the same. Against the decision of the application filed by the land owners under Sec. 28A of the Act, the land owner has a right to file application to the Collector for referring the dispute to the Court. The application filed by the petitioner for that purpose was also not entertained and was merely 'filed'. The decision of the Collector is totally contrary to the provision of law, hence, the same be set aside and matter be remitted back for decision of the application of the petitioner afresh.

(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for the State could not dispute the fact that the petitioner had a right to file application for redetermination of compensation, however, subject to certain limitations as provided in Sec. 28A(1) thereof.