- (1.)THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Writ Petition No. 241 of 1992 dtd. 4/1/1992, whereunder the High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondent claimants directed redetermination of the compensation payable to the claimants in this case in the light of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.)THE award in this case came to be passed on 20/10/1972 and the request for reference under S. 18 came to be rejected on the ground that it was not made within time, as early as on 28/4/1975. With the introduction of S. 28-A by the amending Act of 1984 with effect from 24/9/1984 and the decision of the High Court in R.F.A. No. 166 of 1977 on 5/9/1986 enhancing the compensation at the instance of other claimants, compensation at the enhanced rates was claimed by the present claimants also. But the same came to be rejected by the statutory authority concerned.
The writ petition came to be filed by the claimants challenging the order declining to consider their claim under S. 28-A of the Act on the ground that it was not made within the time envisaged therefor. The learned Judges of the Division Bench were of the view that the question of enhancement of compensation was ultimately settled by the High Court only in R.F.A. No. 166 of 1977 on 5-9-1986 and that the claimants were entitled to avail of the benefits of the provisions contained under S. 28-A of the Act by making an application with reference to the date on which the High Court has settled the question of enhancement of compensation. In substance, the view of the learned Judges seems to be that the only requirement for attracting the application of S. 28-A of the Act was that the land should have been acquired under the same notification and someone or the other of the claimants must have approached and pursued the claim before the higher forum and obtained enhancement of compensation, even if it be before the High Court.

(3.)MR . N.N. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants while placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese Vs. Collector (LA) which followed the earlier decision in Union of India Vs. Pradeep Kumari urged that the reasoning of the High Court cannot be sustained in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the abovenoted decisions. This and the other matters were placed before the Constitution Bench, and are before us, after the decision of the Constitution Bench was rendered on 12/9/2002. No one present for the private respondents to make any special submission at the time of hearing of this appeal.