Ramphal Singh and Others vs Land Acquisition Collector

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Both the above mentioned Civil Revisions viz. CR No. 2611 of 2003 and CR No. 2612 of 2003 have been listed together for hearing. Both the above mentioned Civil Revisions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the facts in CR No. 2611 of 2003. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts from this case are being taken. Present revision petition has been filed u/s 115 of the CPC for setting aside order dated 28.03.2003 passed by Land Acquisition Collector, P.W.D. (B&R) Haryana, Ambala Cantt..

Brief facts of the case are that an application dated 01.04.1997 u/s 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was filed by the petitioners seeking re-determination of their compensation awarded in lieu of their land situated in Manglaura, Tehsil and District Karnal vide LAC Award No. 54 dated 18.02.1987 acquired for a public purpose, namely for the construction of approaches and Guide Bandh etc. for the proposed Yamuna Bridge on Karnal-Meerut Road, at par with the enhancement allowed by the Court of Sh. B.D. Sharma, Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide common judgment dated 04.12.1996 in 25 references arisen out of the same notification issued u/s 4 of the Act dated 26.8.1996 and LAC Award dated 18.2.1987. Notices were given to all affected persons for personal hearing. The department filed their common reply. It was also reported that Sh. Kali Ram had received compensation "otherwise under protest". The application u/s. 28-A of the Act was within time limit of 90 days prescribed under the Act after deducting the period consumed in obtaining the copy of the judgment. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Kali Ram, but no document has been filed. Vide order dated 28.03.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector, on examination, had recorded the following findings:-

As per section 28-A(3) all the provisions of Section 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to a reference u/s. 18. Thus, in consideration of this application of law, the Land Acquisition College has to examine three conditions while deciding the reference u/s. 28-A. Ist condition is: the application u/s. 28-A should be filed within 3 (three) months from the date of judgment of ADJ (excluding the period consumed for obtaining the copy of the judgment), 2nd condition is: that the applicant had received the LAC Award money "Under Protest" and 3rd condition is: the applicant seeking a reference u/s. 28-A has not sought any reference u/s. 18.

On examination of the connected record of the case, it has come in light that the present reference-application fulfills 1st and 3rd conditions but it does not comply with 2nd condition as the applicants have received the LAC Award money otherwise than under protest.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Land Acquisition Collector has mentioned in the impugned order that condition nos. 1 and 3 of Section 28-A of the Act stand fulfilled i.e. application u/s 28A has been filed within three months from the date of judgment of ADJ (excluding the period consumed for obtaining the copy of judgment) and the petitioners who are seeking reference u/s 28-A, had not sought any reference u/s 18 of the Act. However, the petitioners did not fulfill the 2nd condition as they had not received the LAC Award money "Under Protest". The reference/application has been rejected only on the ground that Kali Ram, father of the petitioners, had received the LAC Award money without recording his protest.

To lay challenge to the finding of the learned Land Acquisition Collector on condition No. 2 relating to acceptance of award money "Under Protest", learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Hansoli Devi and Others, He has made specific reference to para no. 12 of the said judgment which reads as under:-

Coming to the second question for reference the receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application u/s 28-A. If a person has not filed an application u/s 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collector with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other land owner''s application for reference is answered by the reference Court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. Otherwise, it would amount to adding one more condition, not contemplated or stipulated by the Legislature itself to deny the benefit of substantial right conferred upon the owner.

From the perusal of the above extracted paragraph, it is clear that if a person does not file an application u/s 18 of the Act to make a reference then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collector with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Act and would be entitled to make an application when some other land owner''s application for reference is answered by the reference Court.

In view of the ratio laid down in Smt. Hansoli Devi''s case (supra), the impugned order dated 28.03.2003 passed by Land Acquisition Collector is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Reference Court with a direction to pass a speaking order in terms of the judgment of Smt. Hansoli Devi''s case (supra).

Parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 20.08.2013. In view of the above terms, both the Civil Revisions are allowed.