SITA DEVI Vs. L.A.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions (CWP No. 234/98 and CWP no. 341/98) are being disposed of by a common judgment as these involve almost similar facts and questions of law,

(2.) The facts in CWP No. 234 of 1998 in brief are that the land of the father of the petitioner situated in Tika Sath. Mauza Badia, district Kangra, along with the lands of other proprietors, was acquired for the public purpose of the construction of reservoir of Beas dam Project in the year 1962 vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called "the Act') and the land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 19. 5. 1971. The reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 9. 1. 1975 with one word 'rejected' on the report made by his office that the petitioner had received amount of compensation without protest and was not entitled to file the application under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter, in a reference petition No. 363 of 1973 titled Kalawati v. Collector, by the award dated 6. 10. 1991 passed by District Judge the amount of compensation was enhanced for a piece of land which was acquired by the same notification whereby land of the petitioner was acquired, which gave cause of action to the petitioner to file an application under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of the compensation awarded to her. The application of the petitioner was dismissed on 18. 5. 1993,

(3.) In reply filed on the affidavit of the Land acquisition Collector Beas Dam Project, the writ petition is resisted on the ground that the application of the petitioner under Section 28-a of the Act was not maintainable as she had already filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act though the same was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that she had accepted the compensation awarded to her without protest. It is also alleged in the reply that the order dated 9. 1. 1975 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector dismissing the reference petition of the petitioner was not challenged by her before the higher courts, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to file application under Section 28-A of the Act. Supporting the impugned order dated 18. 5. 1993 passed by the Land acquisition Collector the respondents have also taken the point of delay and laches.