AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Land of the petitioners was acquired for Tehri Hydro Dam Project. Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'S.L.A.O.') determined the amount of compensation for the land so acquired. Petitioners received the compensation as determined by the S.L.A.O. Subsequently, some other land owners, affected by the same acquisition proceedings, sought reference and the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation vide order dated 25.10.2013.
After about 18 months from the date of re-determination of compensation by Reference Court, petitioners moved applications under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act. The said applications were rejected by the Collector on the ground of delay vide order dated 02.04.2016. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court seeking following reliefs:
"a- To issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2.4.2016 (Annexure-6) passed by respondent no. 2.
b- To issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners at the same rate as has been paid to the other similarly situated persons pursuant to judgment and order dated 25-10-2013 by the Ld. District Judge, Uttarkashi."
Learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by this Court in WPMS No. 346 of 2016 and other connected petitions. In the said judgment, this Court, after placing reliance upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Govardhane and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, [(2013) 10 SCC 765], has held that limitation for purposes of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act starts running from the date of award as pronounced by the Reference Court. Thus, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners had moved application under Section 28-A of the Act within 3 months from the date of acquiring knowledge of the order passed by Reference Court, is of no avail to the petitioners.
In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity, whatsoever, in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.