State of Punjab vs Raghbir Singh and Others

The Notification under Section 4(1) was published on February 4, 1981 for public purpose. The Collector made an award under Section 11 on December 22, 1983. The respondents did not seek for any reference under Section 18. The High Court in the appeal filed by one of the claimants in the same notification by the judgment and decree dated September 10, 1990 enhanced the compensation at ` 1,75,000/- per acre. Thereon the respondents filed the application on January 2, 1991 under Section 28A seeking reference to the Civil Court on the basis of the Judgment of the High Court. The Collector dismissed the application on January 22, 1992. Thereon the respondents filed revision in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order dated August 14, 1992 allowed and directed redetermination of the compensation, on the basis of the Judgment of the High Court dated Sept. 12, 1990.

The entire controversy is now covered by judgment of this Court in Bahua Rum vs. State of U.P. JT 1994 (7) SC 377 . In view of the above judgment the necessary conclusion is that the application for reference does not lie. The reference could be made only on the basis of the Judgment of the Reference Court but within the limitation prescribed under the proviso of Sec. 28A(1). In this case neither the application was filed within limitation nor immediately after the award of the District Court. Under these circumstances the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 cannot be applied and the High Court clearly committed error of law in allowing the revision. The appeal is allowed. The order of this High Court in C. R. No. 88/1992 dated August 14, 1992 is set aside but in the circumstances without costs.