Delhi District Court
Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd vs Union Of India on 8 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No.4/14
New No. LAC -157/16
Area: Bakkarwala
Award No.: 01/DCW/2006-07 dated 11.08.2006
Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd.
through its Director
Shri Pawan Kumar Garg,
38/1, East Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026
....Petitioner
versus
1. Union of India
through A.D.M/L.A.C
District West, Rampura,
New Delhi
2. Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice-Chairman
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.
New Delhi
.....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 20.02.2014
Date of reserving of judgment : 13.07.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.08.2017
(Reference under Section 28 A (3) of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 199 Bigha and 18 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 1/25 Act') vide notification no. F.10 (29)/2004/L&B/LA/3338 dated 17.06.2005 also under Section 6 vide notification no. F.10 (29)/2004/L&B/LA/2892 dated 31.05.2006. The land was acquired for the purpose of 100 mtrs. R/W link road connecting NH-10 to Dwarka Sub City in Village Mundka- Bakkarwala and other Scheme under planned Development of Delhi.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)') passed award no. 1/DC(W)/2006-07 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of land under acquisition @ Rs.15,70,000/- per acre.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector (West) petitioner was shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
Item Name of Khasra Total Details of
No. of recorded owner No. Area in trees/
NM & share Bigha- Buildings/
Biswa Crops
1 Superb Agro Axpo 15//4/2, 02-16
(P) Ltd. Through 15//5, 04-16
its Director Sh. 15//6/2, 03-05
Pawan Kumar 15//7/1, 03-12
Garg 1/4th share 15//8/1, 00-02
16//1/1, 00-18
13//25/1 01-03
16-12
4. A reference under Section 28 A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, received from the office of Collector (West) alongwith under Section 19 of the Act. The petitioner filed an application for reference under Section 28A (3) read LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 2/25 with Section 18 of the Act before the Collector (West) against the order passed under Section 28-A dated 29.05.2013 in respect of Award No. 1/DC(W) 2006-2007 relating to acquisition of land in Khasra, mentioned above of Village Bakkarwala.
5. In brief the facts stated are that the land of the applicant forming the part of Khasra no. 15//4/2 (2-16), 15//5 (4-16), 15//6/2 (3-5), 15//7/1 (3-12), 15//8/1 (0-02), 16//1/1 (0-
18) and 13//25/1 (1-3) of village Bakkarwala, Delhi, total measuring 16 bigha 12 Biswa with 1/4th share situated in Revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala which was acquired vide award in question in pursuance to notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 17.06.2005. The claimant referred to raise her claim for enhancement of compensation.
6. It is stated that the Collector (West) has determined the value of the acquired land part of Block A @ Rs.15,70,000/- per acre or Rs. 3,27,083.33 per bigha. The applicant has given an application under Section 28 A of the Act for re-dertermination of the compensation on the ground that other land owners of the village whose land has been acquired had filed reference petitions for seeking enhancement of compensation in excess of the compensation awarded by the Collector (West) and their reference petitions have been decided by Ld. ADJ in reference petition bearing LAC No. 7/9/07, titled Kailash Wati Vs Union of India & Ors. Vide order dated 26.04.2010 by the then Ld. ADJ, Sh. Ashwani Sarpal. The applicant is entitled for re- determination of compensation under Section 28 A of the Act.
LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 3/25
7. It is stated that in support of the claim before the Collector (West) certified copy of the above said judgment of Ld. ADJ was filed where compensation has been enhanced by Rs.20,35,255/- per acre or Rs. 4,24,011.44 per Bigha alongwith all statutory benefits. The applicant was constrained to approach the Hon'ble High Court vide Writ Petitioner (C) No.1899/2013. This writ petition was decided by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 21.03.2013 wherein directions were made to the Collector (West) to decide the application under Section 28 A of the Act keeping in view the judgment in Kailashwati's case and Jamna's case (Supra) not later than 31.05.2013.
8. It is stated that the Collector (West) vide order dated 29.05.2013 has allowed the application of the applicant but not considered the aspect of the Hon'ble High Court which had granted the compensation @ Rs. 4,98,589/- per bigha i.e 23,93,227.20 per acre and not adhered to the directions of Hon'be High Court. The Collector (West) was also apprised the fact that Union of India had approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of Jamna's (Supra) vide SLP but the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2012, therefore, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court becomes final and binding.
9. The applicant preferred the present reference application amongst inter alia on the grounds that the application was made under Section 28 ( A) of the Act within period of limitation. The Collector (West) had lost sight of the fact that the compensation has been enhanced by Hon'ble High Court in Jamna's case and applicant is entitled to the LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 4/25 enhanced compensation as per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court. The Collector (West) has frustrated the purpose and intent of the provision of Section 28A of the Act.
10. It is stated that the Collector (West) committed the error for not given the applicant enhancement of compensation on the basis of Jamna's case. The applicant is seeking the enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,98,589/- per bigha i.e Rs. 23,93,227.20 per acre accompanied by all benefit such as solatium, and up to date interest etc.
11. The respondent Union of India contested the application and filed written statement. The preliminary objections taken that present reference is barred by limitation. The Collector (West) passed the order on the basis of reasons and considering the market value on the date of notification. On merit all the grounds are denied, it is stated that applicant is not entitled for enhanced compensation.
12. The applicant/petitioner filed replication to the written statement and all the averment made therein are denied and contents of the application and grounds are reiterated. It is stated that written statement is not containing verification and is not supported by an affidavit which is against the provision of Order VI Rule 15 CPC. It is stated that reference is within limitation as filed within statutory period.
13. Respondent no.2/DDA also filed written statement and taken stand that present petition is not maintainable as LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 5/25 the Collector (West) has already paid the compensation vide letter dated 03.01.2014. The fair market value of the acquired land has already been given to the applicant/petitioner. It is stated that judgment cited by the applicant/petitioner is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case and present application/petition is filed only to extract money from respondent no. 2. it is stated that the present application/petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.
14. The applicant/petitioner filed replication to the written statement and all the averment made therein are denied and contents of the application and grounds are reiterated. It is stated that reference is within limitation as filed within statutory period.
15. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 18.09.2014, the following issues have been framed :
1. Whether the present petition filed on behalf of petitioners is time barred? OPR-1
2. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act? OPP
3. Whether petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land if so, at what rate? OPP
4. Relief.
LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 6/25
16. In order to prove its case, the petitioner examined Sh. Pawan Kumar Garg, its Director as PW1 and proved his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. He further relied on the documents Ex. PW-1/1, which is the copy of Reference and Award dated 03.01.2014, Ex. PW1/1A is Board Resolution dated 14.03.2013, Ex. PW-1/2 is the certified copy of judgment titled 'Jamna Vs Union of India; in LA Appeal No. 784/2005 dated 08.07.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court Delhi, Ex.
PW-1/3 is the certified copy of order dated 29.05.2013 passed by Ld. Land Acquisition Collector, Ex. PW-1/4 is the certified copy of order of Hon'ble Ms Justice Reva Khetrapal dated 21.03.2013 in Writ Petition No. 1899/2013 and copy of order dated 19.11.2013 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 6816/13 is Mark X.
17. Petitioner further examined PW-2, Sh. R.P. Sharma, Patwari from the office of LAC, West, who proved the application dated 31.05.2010 under Section 28A of the Act filed by petitioner before the LAC, West as Ex. PW-2/1. He also proved the certified copy of High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 6814/2013 dated 19.11.2013 as Ex. PW-2/2.
18. From the side of respondents, Sh. S.K. Puri, Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered in evidence copy of Award No. 01/DCW/2006-2007 of village Bakkarwala as Ex. R-
1. Thereafter, he closed the evidence of behalf of respondent no.1/Union of India. Ms Anju Gupta, ld. Counsel for respondent no.2/ DDA adopted the evidence led by respondent no. 1 and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.2/ DDA vide statement dated 03.03.2016.
LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 7/25
19. I have heard Sh. Sumit Bansal and Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Counsels for the petitioner, Sh. S.K. Puri, Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India and Sh. R.L. Goel, counsel for respondent no.2/ DDA and perused the material on record. My findings on issues are as under:
20. ISSUE No. 1The onus to prove issue no. 1 is on respondents. The respondents have taken the plea that the present application/petition before LAC, West was time barred. PW-2 Sh. R.P. Sharma, Patwari proved the original record and original application. As per endorsement on Ex. PW-2/1, the petitioner filed the application under Section 28 A of the Act before the Collector (West) on 31.05.2010. The reference court of the then ld. ADJ, Sh. A.K. Sarpal passed the award on 26.04.2010. According, to Section 28 A (1) of the Act the period of limitation is provide three months from the date of Award of court for re-determination of compensation by the Collector (West). In my considered opinion the present application before the Collector (West) is within statutory period of limitation, therefore, issue no. 1 is decided against the respondents and in favour of the applicant/petitioner.21. Issue No. 2 & 3
Issue nos. 2 & 3 are taken up together as they are inter connected and onus to prove both the issues is on the petitioner.
22. Ld. Counsel Sh. Sumit Bansal, counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention to Ex. PW-1/4 i.e order of the Hon'ble Ms Justice Reva Khetrapal dated 21.03.2013 and LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 8/25 referred to Para 7 where the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to dispose of the original application of petitioner under Section 28 A of the Act which was filed on 31.05.2010 not later than 02.04.2013. The Collector (West) also directed to keeping in view the judgments in Kailashwati's and Jamna's case. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Collector ( West) vide order dated Ex. PW-1/3 dated 29.05.2013 decided the application on the basis of judgments of Kailashwati Vs UOI dated 26.04.2010 passed by the then ld. ADJ and did not comply the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. The Collector (West) did not consider the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Jamna's case while re-determine the compensation. He submitted that the order of the Collector (West) is illegal, erroneous and against the directions of Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition.
23. He further submits that as per Section 28 A (3) of Act, the applicant is entitled to benefit of re-determination of the compensation as per Jamna's case. He relied on judgment of Shri Inderjeet Singh Hansrao and Ors. Vs Union of India ( UOI) and Anr. Manu 1545 decided on 18.07.2001, RFA No. 342 of 2001 in this judgment he referred to Para 5 of the judgment.
24. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/petitioner further relied on order in Writ Petition (C) 4439/2013 dated 17.07.2013 in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs Additional District Magistrate/Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. He referred to the Para 10 of the judgment.
LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 9/25
25. My attention has been drawn to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the Hon'ble High Court while deciding this writ petition. The judgments of V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs Singarent Collieries Company Limited And Another, (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 650 and Union of India and Anothers Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors, ( 1995) 2, SCC 736, Manu, SC,0450, 1995. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case of writ petition of DDA the Hon'ble High Court relied on these two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and rejected the plea of the DDA.
26. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further referred to the judgment of UOI Vs Munshi Ram and submitted that the Collector (West) felled in error by not applying the well settled principle of law for re-determination as per judgment of Jamna's granting the enhanced amount according to the said judgment. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for re- determination of enhancement of compensation in terms of Jamna's case (Supra), judgment of Hon'ble High Court as all other land owners granted.
27. On the other hand ld. Counsel Sh. S.K. Puri, ld. Counsel for UOI submitted that the Collector (West) has rightly and correctly re-determined the compensation under Section 28 ( A) of the Act. He relied on the judgment of D. Venkamma and Others Vs Special Tehsildar ( LA), (1996), 1 SCC, 85. He referred to Para 3 of the judgment. He submitted that the law is well settled that under Section 28 A the expression 'Court' has been defined under Section 3
(d) to mean "a principal civil court of original jurisdiction ". In LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 10/25 the present case the principal original jurisdiction for answering the reference lies with the reference court i.e the court of Ld. District Judge/Addl. District Judge and it is not the appellate court as per Section 54 of the Act.
28. He further submitted that petitioner has no cause of action for re-determination of compensation as per Section 54 under Section 28 (A) of the Act. He submitted that the Collector (West) re-determined the market value and order is legal and correct. He further relied on judgment of Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition ) V. Shah Manilal Chandulal and Others (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 414 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the Section 3 (d) definition of the court i.e the court of original jurisdiction i.e reference Court.
29. Sh. S.K. Puri, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1, UOI, further relied on judgment of Girimallappa Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer M and MIP and another, (2012), 11, Supreme Court Cases, 548. He submitted that the main object of Section 28 A to aid a particular class of society, namely, poor, illiterate, ignorant and matriculate people. The petitioner is not belonging to either of the class, therefore, he is not entitled for compensation as per Jamna's case as there is no cause of action.
30. Sh. R.L. Goel, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 DDA vehemently argued that present petition filed by the petitioner being industrialist and influential to extract money from respondent no. 2. He relied on the findings in Union of India and another Vs Hansoli Devi and other, AIR 2002 LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 11/25 Supreme Court 3240. He submitted that the application under Section 28 A for re-determination of compensation can be made by a person who had not made reference or reference petition was rejected due to limitation.
31. He further submitted that the view taken in the judgment of Pradeep's case also came into consideration before full bentch but it could not be answered because no specific reference was made. He submitted that present case is distinguishable with the judgment relied by ld. Counsel for the petitioner of Pradeep Kumar case and V. Ramakrishna Rao (Supra). He had categorically disputed the legal preposition provision put forward by counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition of DDA Vs Addl. District Magistrate/Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., bearing no. W.P (C)4439/2013. He submitted that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the final order and other Supreme Court judgment and that writ petition is on a totally different set of facts which are not applicable in the present petition.
32. Sh. R.L. Goel, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2, DDA vehemently argued that the main object of Section 28 A is defeated by petitioner who is industrialists and wants the benefits like poor, illiterate, ignorant persons. He submits that nobody obstructed the way of approach the petitioner after award under Section 18 of Act. The petitioner was ignorant and did not file reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. He submitted that petitioner now taking the advantage of Section 28 A of the Act and standing in the queue of poor, ignorant, illiterate persons and seeking the benefit which is not available to him. The Section 54 of the Act is not LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 12/25 applicable in present facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has mis-guided this court for getting the relief as per Section 54 of Act. He submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost for such rich and industrialist petitioner. Ld. Counsel relied on judgment of Girimallappa Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer M and MIP and another, (2012), 11, Supreme Court Cases, 548.
33. In order to appreciate respective contention of Ld. Counsels for the parties the Section 28 A of the Act is reproduce hereunder:-
28A, Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court- (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, nothwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court.
Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.
(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 13/25 be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.
34. The case of the petitioner is that an application under Section 28-A of the Act for redetermination of compensation filed before the Collector ( West) on the basis of judgment of the case bearing LAC No. 7/9/07 titled Kailash Wati Vs Union of India & Ors by the then ld. ADJ Sh. Ashwani Sarpal dated 26.04.2010 for re-determination of the compensation. The claim before the Collector (West) supported with the certified copy of the said judgment Kailash Wati ( Supra). The Collector (West) enhanced and re-determined the compensation equivalent to the market value as awarded by the reference court @ Rs.20,35,255/- per acre or Rs. 4,24,011.44 per bigha vide order dated 29.5.2013. Thereafter petitioner was aggrieved with the order of the Collector for re-determination of compensation and filed an application under Section 28-A (3) which has been referred to this court.
35. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Collector (West) erred in re-determination in the light of orders of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 1899/2013 wherein directions were given to the Collector (West) to consider the judgment of reference court, Kailashwati Vs Union of India & Ors, as well as Jamna Vs Union of India & Ors decided by High Court on 08.07.2011. The substance of the argument of the petitioner's counsel is that the compensation shall be redetermined as enhanced by the Hon'ble High Court in case of Jamna ( Supra). In order to interprate the legal LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 14/25 matrix, both parties have referred to several judgments mentioned herein above.
36. In my considered opinion the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Venkamma V. Special Tehsildar ( LA) Unit-IV (1996) 1 SCC 85 laid down the law in para 3 & 6 of the judgment which are as under:-
3. Section-28-A of the Act speaks of redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the "award of the court" and provides that when the court allows any amount in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the person or persons interested in all other land covered by the notification under Section 4(1) and who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector, may, notwithstanding that he/they had not made an application, by a written application to the Collector within three months from the date of award of the court, require the Collector to redetermine the compensation on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court. In other words, the foundation for making an application under Section 28-A is the award of the court. The expression 'Court' has been defined under Section 3(d) to mean " a principal civil court of original jurisdiction" and in an appropriate case "a special judicial officer" appointed by the Government to perform the functions of the court.
In other words, the court of original jurisdiction which receives an order of reference pursuant to an application made under Section 18 is the civil court of original jurisdiction. By necessary implication, judgment of an appellate court made under Section 54 of the Act does not give right or cause of action to make an application under Section 28-A of the Act.
6. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the High Court enhancing the compensation under Section 23(1) does not provide a right or cause of action to make a written application under Section 28-A seeking redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the compensation awarded by the court under reference under Section 18 of the Act.
LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 15/25 Shri Prakash Reddy, therefore, is right in his fairness to contend that the application made under Section 28-A is not maintainable.
37. Further in case of Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) V. Shah Manilal Chandulal, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 414 the distinction between Section 3 (d) and Section 3 (c) defines by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that as per Section 3 (d), 'court' means "the principal civil court of original jurisdiction or a principal judicial officer within any special local limits appointed thereunder to perform the functions of the court under the Act."
38. It is pertinent to mention here that in case of Union of India and another Vs Hansoli Devi and others and other connected matter in the same judgment, State of Tripura and another Vs Roop Chand Das and others, AIR 2002, Supreme Court 3240, the full Bench also interpreted Section 28-A. The Full Bench held as under:-
"1. Whether the award of the court, i.e. civil court made under Section 26 on reference under Section 18 would also include judgment and decree of the appellate court under Section 54".
2. Whether each successive award or judgment and decree ( if answer on Question No. 1 is positive) would give cause of action to file application under Section 28-A, if so construed, does not such a construction violate the language used in Section 28-A when Parliament advisedly did not use such expressions?"
The aforesaid order of the two learned Judges indicate that they did not agree with the ratio of this court in case of Union of India and another V. Pradeep Kumari and others, 1995 (2) SCC 736. But the two points stood answred by the three Judge Bench in the case of Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and another V. Land Acquisition LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 16/25 Collector and another, 1996 (6) SCC 746, as already stated. The genesis of the dispute can be referred to Babua Ram and others V. State of U.P and another, 1995 (2) SCC 689. In Babua Ram, the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act came up for consideration and a Bench of two learned Judges came to hold that the period of three months prescribed for making an application for re-determination of compensation must be computed from the date of earliest award of the Court made under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act and not from the date of judgment and decree of the court of appeal. It was also held that successive awards made by the reference court at different times in respect of the land covered by the same notification do not furnish a fresh cause of action. In the case of Union of India and others V. Karnail Singh and others, 1995 (2) SCC, 728, a Bench of two learned Judges reiterated the aforesaid view expressed in Babua Ram and held that the earliest award of the reference Court by which the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer stood enhanced, would be the starting point of limitation of three months, enabling the land owners whose land also been acquired under the same notification and who had not made any reference under Section 18 of the Act earlier. The views expressed in the aforesaid two judgments however stood overruled by a three Judge Bench in the case of Union of India and another V. Pradeep Kumari and others, 1995 (2) SCC 736. In Pradeep Kumari's case, it was held that the benefit of re-determination of the amount of compensation under Section 28-A, can be availed of, on the basis of any one of the awards that has been made by the court after coming into force of Section -28A and the period of limitation of three months would start from the date of making of the award on the basis of which re-determination is sought. The learned Judges felt that there is nothing in sub-section (1) of Section 28-A to indicate that the right is confined in respect of the earliest award that is made by the court. The court further held:-
"........, By restricting the benefit of Section 28-A to the first award that is made by the court after the coming into force of Section 28-A, the benefit of higher amount of compensation on the basis of the subsequent award made by the court would be denied to the persons invoking Section LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 17/25
-28-A and the benefits of the said provision would be confined to re-determination of compensation on the basis of lesser amount of compensation awarded under the first award that is made after the coming into force of Section 28-A. There is nothing in the wordings of Section 28-A to indicate that the legislature intended to confer such a limited benefit under Section 28-A"
The court enumerated the conditions to be satisfied, whereafter an application under Section 28-A can be moved. The said conditions being:
"(i) An award has been made by the court under Part III after the coming into force of Section 28A;
(ii) By the said award the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 has been allowed to the applicant in that reference;
(iii) The person moving the application under Section 28-A is interested in other land covered by the same notification under Section 4 (1) to which the said award relates;
(iv) The person moving the application did not make an application to the Collector under Section
18.
(v) The application is moved within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which the re-determination of amount of compensation is sought; and
(vi) Only one application can be moved under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation by an applicant,"
As has been stated earlier in Jose Antonio Cruz's case, the High Court had followed the decision of this court in Union of India and another V. Pradeep Kumari and others, referred to supra but the two learned Judges doubted the correctness of the ratio in Pradeep Kumari and had referred the matter to a larger Bench of five learned Judges. When the cases has been placed before the learned Chief Justice, the Chief Justice was not persuaded to constitute a larger Bench of five learned Judges and on the other hand directed that the cases be placed before a three Judges Bench and then ultimately the three Judge Bench disposed of the matter by Judgment dated 20th November, 1996, since reported in 1996 (6) SCC 746. Out of the two question referred to by the two Judge Bench, the Court answered the first question by observing that there is no difference of opinion on the question that the period of limitation would start to run from the date of LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 18/25 reference court order and the period of three months would start from the order of the reference court and not from the order of the Court passed in appeal against the same. On the second question, as to whether successive awards would give a fresh cause of action, as was held.
In Pradeep Kumari's case, the court held that the three Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumari's case had departed from the view taken earlier in two cases by two Judge Bench viz. In Babua Ram and Karnail Singh, and further observed that if and when the question arises in an appropriate case, perhaps a reference to a five-
Judge Bench may become necessary. The aforesaid observation indicates that the three Judge Bench in Jose Antonio Cruz, doubted the correctness of the ratio in Pradeep Kumari's case that if successive award are passed by the reference Court, then it is open to the person who wants to take the benefit of filing an application under Section 28-A to choose anyone of those awards and can make an application within three months from the date of the said award.
39. Full Bench has not answered the reference with regard to correctness of the Pradeep Kumari's case submits as under that:-
7. So far as the argument of learned Solicitor General on the correctness of the Pradeep Kumari's case is concerned, it may be stated that the said question does not appear to be a question, which has been referred to this Constitution Bench. As has been stated earlier that question had been referred by a Bench of two learned Judges in Jose Antonio Cruz's case, 1996 (1) SCC 88 as question No. 2, but a Bench of three learned Judges in 1996 (6) SCC 746, while answered the first question, did not think it necessary to answer the second question, even though some doubts were raised about the correctness of the three Judge Bench decision in Pradeep Kumari's case. But sine that question has neither been referred to us under the order of reference made in the present case nor does it arise in the case in hand, we refrain from answering the same.
LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 19/25
40. The judgment of Union of India and another Vs Hansoli Devi (Supra) the Full Bench has referred to the judgments relied by counsel for petitioner of Union of India and another Vs Pradeep Kumari (Supra). It is pertinent to mention here that the law laid down by Apex court in the case of D. Venkamma V. Special Tehsildar, 1996, 1 SCC 85 on the legal preposition of cause of action is not negated in the case of Pradeep Kumari (Supra) judgment. Hence in the light of this judgment and Union of India and another Vs Hansoli Devi, Full Bench judgment the cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner for invoking Section 28-A of the Act is the date of passing of judgment by the reference court as per Section 3 (d) of the Act not on the basis of Section 54 of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner approached the Collector (West) on the basis of re-determination of compensation on the basis of judgment of Kailash Wati (Supra) passed by reference court constituted under Section 3(d) of the Act. In the original application under Section 28A of the Act, the petitioner did not seek the enhancement and re-determination on the basis of the judgment of Jamna (Supra).
41. For argument sake if the intention of the legislature is that a cause of action acrues for invoking Section 28 A of Act after passing of judgment in appeal as per Section 54 of the Act by the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court then the word 'court' have been explained and included the appellate courts as well. However, legislature in its wisdom specifically mentioned the word 'court' in Section 28 A (1) of the Act. As per Section 3(d) the Act the 'court' means the principal court of LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 20/25 original jurisdiction i.e the reference court not the appellate Court.
42. In my considered opinion, the cause of action arise to invoke Section 28A of the Act is on the basis of the judgment of the reference court not of the appellate court. Admittedly, the petitioner also invoked right by filing Section 28A (1) application of the Act on the basis of Kailshwati (Supra), reference court judgment not on the basis of Jamna (Supra) judgment of appellate court.
43. The law is well settled that any person who approaches the appellate court under Section 54 of the Act either High Court or Supreme Court for enhancement of compensation by challenging the judgment of reference court then only that person is entitled for enhancement of compensation under Section 54 of the Act and not the person who has not approached the appellate court. If a person does not approach the appellate court then he cannot approach either to Collector or to the reference court for enhancement of compensation as per the judgment of appellate court. Therefore, the right to file application for re-determination of compensation under Section 28 A of the Act, which is a code in itself because it provides the limitation period as well arises after the judgment of reference court not after the judgment of appellate court.
44. The Supreme Court in the three judges bench in recent judgment Ramsinghbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai Vs The State of Gujarat and Ors. 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 114 while considering the legal preposition and LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 21/25 interpretation of Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act held as under:-
2. Whether an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short " the Act) for redetermination of the compensation can be filed within a period of 3 months from the date of judgment of the High Court or Supreme Court passed in appeal under Section 54 of the Act is the question that arises for consideration in this case.
3. Section 28A (1) of the Act reads as follows:-
A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court.- (1) Where in an award under this Part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector Under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification Under Section 4, Sub-Section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court.
Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this Sub-Section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.
It is clear from the opening words of the provision that the redetermination Under Section 28A is available only in respect of an "Award" passed by the "court" under Part III of the Act, comprising Section 18 to 28A ( both inclusive). The "court" referred to in Section 28A of the Act is the court as defined Under Section 3(d) to mean"... a principal civil court of original jurisdiction....". Thus, the judgment of the appellate court is not within the purview of Section 28A. It is also to be noted that the appellate courts under Section 54 are under Part VIII of the Act whereas the redetermination is only in respect of the Award passed by the Reference Court under Part III of the Act. In its recent judgment in Bharatsing and LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 22/25 Ors. V. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 92 This court has surveyed the decision on this issue and reiterated the legal principle.
4. What that Appellant seeks is redetermination of compensation under the Act in terms of the judgment of the High Court passed Under Section 54 of the Act. In view of the settled legal position which we have explained above, the Appellant is not entitled to such a relief; his entitlement, if any, is only in terms of Section 28 A of the Act based on the award of the Reference Court.
45. In my considered opinion the re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A by the Collector on the basis of the judgment of Kailashwati ( Supra) of reference court is legal, correct and does not require interference of this court.
46. Ld. Counsel for the DDA vehemently argued that petitioner is an industrialist and misusing the provision of Section 28-A of the Act. The judgment of Girimallappa Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer M and MIP and another, (2012) 11, SC 548 referred for reference. In this judgment object of Section 28-A of the Act have been highlighted. The relevant para is as under:
7. This Court in State of Orissa V. Chtrasen Bhoi considered this aspect and held :-
15. The scope of provision of Section 28-A of the Act was considered by this court in Mewa Ram V. State of Haryana and the court placed emphasis particularly on Para 2 (ix) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of this Amendment Act, 1987 which provided for a special provision for inarticulate and poor people to apply for redetermination of the compensation amount on the basis of the court award in a land acquisition reference filed by comparatively affluent landowner. The court observed as under:-
LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 23/25
4......Section 28 A in terms does not apply to the case of the petitioners....they do not belong to that class of society for whose benefit the provision is intended and meant i.e. inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
This court approved and reiterated the law laid down in Mewa Ram in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. Vs Union of India.
16.....In Babua Ram Vs State of U.P's, this court again reiterated the law laid down in Mewa Ram observing as under:-
36.....Legislature made a "discriminatory policy between the poor and inarticulate" as one class of person to whom the benefit of Section 28-
A was to be extended and comparatively affluent who had taken advantage of the reference under Section 18 and the latter as a class to which the benefit of Section 28-A was not extended. Otherwise the phraseology of the language of the non obstante clause would have been differently worded....
37.....It is true that the legislature intended to relieve hardship of the poor, indigent and inarticulate interested persons who generally failed to avail the reference under Section 18 which is an existing bar and to remedy it, Section 28-A was enacted giving {a}right and remedy for re-determination.... The legislature appears to have presumed that the same state of affairs continue to subsist among the poor and inarticulate person and they generally fail to avail the right under sub-section (1) of Section 18 due to poverty or ignorance or avoidance of expropriation.
17. Thus, it is apparent that the legislature has carved out an exception in the form of Section 28- A and made a special provision to grant some relief to a particular class of society, poor, illiterate, ignorant and inarticulate people. It is made only for 'little Indians".
(emphasis added) The petitioner cannot claim, by any means, to fall under the said category of "little Indians". However, as the said order has not been challenged by the respondent(s) we cannot examine the issue further, even if the order is totally unwarranted.
LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 24/25
47. In my considered opinion, the petitioner remain ignorant and did not file application under Section 18 of the Act after passing of the award. The petitioner also not belonging to poor class of people or not an illiterate and inarticulate, however legal right envisage under Section 28-A cannot be discriminated being the industrialist. The petitioner falls into the category of "ignorant person", therefore, the benefit of Section 28-A cannot be deprived to the petitioner.
48. On the basis of above observation and discussion, in my considered opinion, the Land Acquisition Collector, legally and correctly redetermined the compensation as awarded by reference court vide judgment of Kailashwati Vs Union of India dated 26.04.2010. Accordingly, issue no. 2 & 3 are decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondents.
49. Relief In view of finding on issue no 2 & 3 the petitioner is not entitled for any enhancement and the petition is answered accordingly. No order as to cost. Decree Sheet be prepared.
A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 8th day of August,2018 (Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West Delhi LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 25/25 LAC No. 4/14 (New No.157/16) Superb Agro Expo (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 26/25