- (1.) Application of the petitioner filed under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1894') has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Awas Meerut/Special Land Acquisition Officer, which is assailed in the present writ petition.
(2.) It appears that certain land belonging to the petitioner had been acquired for establishing of a residential housing colony by the respondent Housing Board. An award was made but considering the interse dispute between the parties with regard to entitlement to receive compensation, a reference under section 30 of the Act of 1984 was made, which came to be decided by the court in L.A.R. No.20 of 1987 on 8.3.1989. It is admitted that the amount of compensation payable under the award was received by the petitioner's mother on 30.10.1989. It further appears that in the context of reference made under section 18 of the Act, at the instance of other tenure-holders, the reference court enhanced the compensation determined by the Collector. The determination so made by the reference court was assailed by the Housing Board by filing appeal under section 54 of the Act of 1894, which came to be dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, Housing Board challenged the judgment of this Court by filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed on 2.11.2012. It is thereafter that an application under section 28-A of the Act of 1894 has been filed by the petitioner, seeking enhanced compensation, on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 2.11.2012. This application of the petitioner under section 28-A of the Act of 1894 dated 28.1.2013 appears to have been got received in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 29.1.2013, which has been rejected by the order under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since determination of compensation has attained finality with dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2.11.2012, therefore, the filing of reference within three months thereafter was within limitation and could not have been rejected.;