The Executive Engineer, PWD (R and B), National Highway, Suryapet Division and Others vs P. Yellaiah and Others

Lingaraja Rath, J.—The only question which forms the basis of this appeal at the instance of the officers of the State is whether the benefit of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is available to a person, otherwise entitled to have compensation under it, if the application is made not within three months of the first award made by the Civil Court in respect of the land acquired but files the application for higher compensation within three months of a later award made by the Civil Court in respect of land acquired under the same notification u/s 4(1). ''

Ac. 6-30 cents of land was acquired under a common, notification u/s 4(1) on l7-12-1970.and a common award of compensation was made by the land Acquisition Officer in respect of the lands on 16-10-1974. The award was referred to the Civil Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of all the six claimants and was registered as O.P.No. 4 of 1976. Two of the claimants, claimant Nos. 5 and 6 were set ex parte in O.P .No. 4 of 1976 and the Civil Court disposed of the matter on 31-3-1981. granting higher compensation than that awarded by the Collector. Three appeals were carried to this Court against the decision of the Civil Court of which A.S.No. 267 of 1982 was filed by claimant No. 4, A.S.No. 3223 of 1983 was filed by claimant No. 3 and A.S.No. 1343 of 1982 was filed by the appellants. In A.S.No. 1343 of 1982 the claimants 5 and 6, Lachaiah and Pochaiah had been impleaded as respondents 5 and 6. This Court disposed of the appeals on 17-8-1988 by a common order allowing the appeals of the claimants granting higher compensation and dismissing the appeal of the appellants. In the meantime claimants 5 and 6 filed applications before the Subordinate Judge to set aside the ex parte order against them passed in O.P.No. 4 of 1976. That application, registered as I.A.No.427 of 1988 was allowed by the Subordinate Judge on 26-10-1988, the ex parte order was set aside, and O.P.No. 4 of 1976, in respect of them, was taken up for trial. On 6-12-1988 the Subordinate Judge allowed the claims of claimants 5 and 6 in O.P.No. 4 of 1976 granting them higher compensation in terms of the compensation fixed by the High Court in A.S. Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982, The respondents in the present appeal, whose lands had also been acquired in the same notification u/s 4(1) and who had received compensation without protest, filed applications on 8-12-1988 before the Land Acquisition Collector claiming higher compensation in terms of the award passed on 6-12-1988 by the Court, u/s 28-A of the Act. Similar applications were made by them again on 10-4-1989 pointing out that the rates of compensation in respect of their land was covered by the decisions of the High Court in A.S.Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982. Since in spite of successive representations the matter was not disposed of, the respondents filed W.P. No. 11668 of 1990 seeking the relief. During the pendency of the Writ Petition the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders on 7-4-1992 rejecting the claims as the applications u/s 28-A were made after lapse of eight years from the date of the first award of the Civil Court madeon31-l-1981. Besides he was also of the view that Section 28-A had no retrospective effect for which reason the respondents were not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Section as the appeals were disposed of by the High Court on 17-8-1988. The Writ Petition having been allowed on 5-4-1993 with direction to re-determine the compensation u/s to 28-A in the light of the order in O.P.No. 4 of 1976 made on 6-12-1988, the present appeal has been preferred.

The question hence is whether the three months limitation stipulated in Section 28-A of the Act to make the application is to run from the first award of the Civil Court or if there are subsequent orders, from the dates of such years.

The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition who fairly took us through all the decisions on the issue fairly conceded of the question to be no longers res integra and to have been clinched by the Supreme Court in favour of the respondents.

In Union of India and another Vs. Pradeep Kumari and others, the Court held disagreeing with the view expressed in the earlier decisions in Babua Ram and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Karnail Singh and Others, as under:

"In our opinion, the benefit of redetermination of amount of compensation u/s 28-A can be availed of on the basis of any one of the awards that has been made by the court after the coming into force of Section 28-A provided the applicant seeking such benefit makes the application u/s 28-A within the prescribed period of three months from the making of the award on the basis of which redetermination is sought."

The question raised in the appeal is thus wholly covered by the decision of the Apex Court. The decision in the judgment under appeal hence finds full support from the decision of the Supreme Court. There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.