UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRADEEPKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these Review Petitions the petitioners are seeking review of the order dated October 8, 1991 whereby Civil Appeals Nos. 2320-21 of 1991 filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. The said Civil Appeals arose out of proceedings for acquisition of land for the Beas Dam Project. Notifications dated January 11, 1962, April 1, 1963 and November 10, 1964 were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') during the period 1962-64 in respect of lands in District Kangra which was a part of the erstwhile State of Punjab. After the re-organisation of the State of Punjab by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 the said lands came to fall in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Proceedings for acquisition of land were thereafter conducted in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Beas Dam Project, Talwara. The respondents in these petitions did not seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act but other persons whose lands were acquired under the said notifications sought a reference. Most of these references were disposed of by the Court prior to September 24, 1984 but in some references the award by the Court was made after the enactment of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') which came into force on September 24, 1984. By the Amendment Act Section 28-A was introduced in the Act. According to the petitioners the earliest award by the Court after the coming into force of the Amendment Act was made on December 27, 1984. Awards were, however, made by the Court in pending references subsequent to December 27, 1984 also. One such award was made on February 21, 1987. Smt. Pradeep Kumari, respondent No.1, filed an application under Section 28-A for claiming the benefit of the said award dated February 21, 1987. On the said application the Collector made an order dated March 14, 1988 awarding additional amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court dated February 21, 1987. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Collector dated March 14, 1988 the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 181 of 1989 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Respondent No.2 Smt. Savitri Devi, also filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act wherein she contended that the benefit of the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated September 5, 1986 in R.F.A. No. 166 of 1977 be extended to her and the amount of compensation be enhanced on that basis under Section 28-A. The said application of respondent No.2 was dismissed by the Collector on January 29, 1987 on the view that the benefit under Section 28-A is available only on the basis of an award of the reference Court and redetermination of the amount of compensation could not be sought on the basis of the judgment of the High Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Collector respondent No.2 filed Civil Writ Petition No. 580 of 1987 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In the said writ petition respondent No.2 submitted that in case she was not entitled to get enhanced compensation on the basis of the judgment of the High Court dated September 5, 1986, she may be given the benefit of Section 28-A on the basis of the award made by the reference Court on November 10, 1986.

(2.) Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court by common judgment dated October 24, 1990. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted before the High Court that the expression 'award of the Court' in Section 28-A of the Act means the first award made by the Court after the coming into force of the Amendment Act and as the said award was made on December 27, 1984 the applications submitted by the respondents are barred by limitation since they were submitted after expiry of the period of three months from the date of the making of the said award. The High Court rejected the said contention and held that all that is required for the applicability of Section 28-A is that there should be an award made under Part III of the Act by the Court in which excess amount is allowed and that Section 28-A no where provides that it should be the first award after coming into force of the Amendment Act. The High Court held that the other requirement for the applicability of Section 28-A, is that the land of the person interested should be covered by the same notification which is the subject matter of the award of the Court and in that event the application should be moved within the period of three months from the date of the making of the award. The High Court however, held that the said right has to be exercised only once and that once the right has been exercised by a person by applying to the Collector for redetermination, no application can be made thereafter. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed by the High Court on the view that respondent No. 2 could invoke the benefit of Section 28-A on the basis of the award made by the District Judge on November 10, 1986 in another land Reference No. 15 of 1984. Civil Appeals Nos. 2320-21 of 1991 filed by the petitioners against the said judgment of the High Court were dismissed by this Court by order dated October 8, 1991 whereby it has been held that the High Court was right in extending the benefit of enhanced compensation as well as the enhanced rate of interest and solatium to the respondents.

(3.) The first contention urged by Shri N.N. Goswamy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, was that the benefit of Section 28-A could be extended only if the application is made within three months from the date of the making of the first award after the coming into force of the Amendment Act and, as in the present case the first such award was made by the Court on December 27, 1984, the application for redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A could only be moved within three months from the date of the said award of the Court. Shri Goswamy has submitted that since the applications under Section 28-A of both the respondents were made after the expiry of the said period of three months from the date of the first award the said applications could not be entertained and were liable to be dismissed and that the benefit of Section 28-A could not be extended to the respondents. Shri Goswamy has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Babu Ram v. State of U.P. (1994) 7 JT (SC) 377: (1995 AIR SCW 65) and Union of India v. Karnail Singh, 1995 (1) SCALE 21.