SUNYUKTA GULER Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have sought quashing of the orders dated 1/03/1988, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Beas Dam Project, Talwara, Annexures P-2 to P-13, rejecting the applications of the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein-after to be called as the Act) seeking re-determination of the compensation amount on the ground that the petitioners cannot be said to be persons aggrieved and thus entitled to have the amount of compensation re-determined.

(2.) Property of the petitioners located in 12 revenue estates was acquired by the respondent for public purpose, namely, for the construction of reservoir of Pong Dam on the basis of notification dated 1/04/1963, issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. After the Land Acquisition Collector had made his award, petitioners received the amount of compensation but no reference was sought by them under Section 18 of the Act. After the Act had been amended by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 (briefly the Amendment Act), on the basis of which Section 28-A was introduced enabling the persons interested to seek re-determination of the amount of compensation, the petitioners applied for re-determination of the amount of compensation. The applications were resisted by the respondent on various grounds. One of the grounds on which resistance was put and which prevailed with the Collector in rejecting the same was that the petitioners had received the amount of compensation without protest and as such they were not persons aggrieved, which was one of the conditions precedent in seeking re-determination of the amount of compensation.

(3.) The impugned orders have been challenged on the ground that the Collector, Land Acquisition has by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act came to an incorrect conclusion thereby depriving the petitioners of the benefit of the provision which was introduced in the amendment Act with a view to provide equality in the payment of compensation. It was further urged that Section 28-A of the Act deserves to be construed in the manner that the desired object is achieved, for which learned counsel sought assistance from para 2(ix) of the Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act, which reads as under :-