Holding

The limitation period for a Section 28‑A(1) application begins from the date of the reference court’s award, and a High Court judgment is not an award under Section 18; therefore, the petitioners could not invoke Section 28‑A after the High Court’s enhancement and their application was barred.

Summary

The petitioners, heirs of the deceased Smt. Bhagti, sought redetermination of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the High Court enhanced the award. They filed an application under Section 28‑A(1) within 30 days of the High Court judgment, but the Land Acquisition Officer dismissed it and the District Judge later re‑determined the compensation. The Supreme Court examined when the limitation period for a Section 28‑A(1) application begins to run and whether a High Court order qualifies as the "award of the reference court" contemplated by the statute. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court held that the limitation starts from the date of the reference court’s award (the District Judge) and that a High Court judgment is not such an award; consequently, the petitioners were not entitled to invoke Section 28‑A after the High Court’s enhancement. The application filed was therefore barred by limitation and the special leave petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

When does the limitation period for filing an application under Section 28‑A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act commence?
Does a High Court judgment enhancing compensation constitute an "award of the reference court" for purposes of Section 28‑A(1)?
Are claimants who have appealed the reference court’s award entitled to seek redetermination under Section 28‑A(1)?
Can an application filed after a High Court judgment be maintained under Section 28‑A(1)?

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 18, s. 28-A(1), s. 4(1), s. 50(2)

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationRedeterminationSection 28‑ALimitation periodReference courtHigh Court awardAppeal

Judgment

A SMT. BHAGTI (DECEASED) THROUGH
HER L.RS. JAGDISH RAM SHARMA
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA

JANUARY 27, 1997
B
[K RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 28-A.

C Land acquisition---Compensation--Redetermination of compensa-
tion-Persons eligible to apply for-Period of limitation for filing application
of redetennination-Acquisition of land for development and utilisation of
the land for residential pwpose~Award of compensation for-Reference
under section 18 not sought by appellant-But on reference sought by other
land-owners District Judge enhanced compensation---Compensation further
D e11hanced by High Court-171ereafter appellant filed an application u11der
section 28-A-Said application filed within 30 days from the date of judgme11t · "-
of the High Court-Application dismissed by Land Acquisitio11 Officer but
District Judge redetennined the compensation-High Court set aside the
award of Reference Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, the
E claimants are not entitled to make an application for re-detennination of
compensation under Section 28-A(l) after judgment of the High Court; nor
are the claimants entitled to avail of that award which is more beneficial to
the claimants, i.e. the High Cowt judgment-The limitation period begins to
run from" the date of award of Distlict Judge-17ie application though filed
F · within limitation from the date of High Court's judgment was not main-
tainable.

Babua Rum & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1995) 2 SCC 689, referred
to.

G Jose Antanio Cruz Dos R. Rodriqueses & Anr. v. LandAcquisition
Collector & Anr., [1996] 1 SCC 88 = J.T. (1995) 8 SC 328; U.P. State
Industrial Development Coporation Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1995) 2
SCC 766 and State of Maharashtra v. Manakchand Pyannal & Ors., [1996)
1sec297.

R Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India,
~'7~
SMT. BHAGTiv. STATE 577

AIR (1991) SC 730; State of Punjab v. Raghbir Singh & Ors., [1995) Supp. A
"-'f 2 SCC 679; State of Punjab v. Raglmbir Singh, [1989) 3 SCR 316 and P.
Venkamma & Ors. v. Special Tehsilda1; (LA) Unit-W, Janagareddigudem
W. G. District, Elugi, A.P., [1996) 1 85, relied on,

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition No.
~~~ B

... From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.92 . of the Punjab &
...,, Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 73 of 1991.

Mrs. Meera Agarwal, Kuldeep Singh and R.C. Mishra for the Ap-
pellant.
c
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This special leave arises from order of the Division Bench of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on August 18, 992 in Civil Revision D
No. 73 of 1991.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
decision of this Court in Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1995)
2 SCC 689 was referred to a Constitution Bench in Jose Antanio Crnz Dos
R. Rodriqueses & Anr. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., [1996) 1 SCC
E
88 = J .T. (1995) 8 SC 328 and thereafter cases with similar facts were also
referred. We find that the statement is not accurate and in the facts of this
case, the question does not arise. The admitted position is as under.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 F
(for short the 'Act') was published on June 26, 1973 acquiring 133.24 acres
of land situated in Village Dara Kalan, District Kurukshetra for develop-
ment and utilisation of the land for residential purposes. The Collector in
his award dated July 17, 1975 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3
per square yard. The appellant did not seek any reference under Section
18. However, on reference sought by others, the District Judge in his award G
and decree dated October 3, 1981 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7 per
sq. yd. Dissatisfied therewith, those claimants filed appeal in the Hi~
... Court. The High Court by Judgment and decree dated March 14, 1990
further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 37 per sq. yd. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed an application within the prescribed limitation period of 30 H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.

A days from the date of the judgment of the High Court under Section 28-A
of the Act for payment of the enhanced compensation. The Land Acquisi-
tion Collector by Order dated September 5, 1990 dismissed the application
but the District Judge re-determined the compensation by Order dated
December 24, 1991. The revision application, on reference by the learned
single Judge, was allowed by the Division Bench setting aside the reference
B Court award. Thus. this special leave.

It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to re-determination of
compensation on par with others and the question of limitation does not
stand in the way. The question, therefore, is : as to when the limitation
C begins to run for the purpose of filing of an application under Section 28-A
of the Act? The Amendment Act 68 of 1984 introducing Section 28-A had
come into force with affect from September 24, 1984. Section 28-A en-
visages giving of benefit to a person who had accepted the award made
under Section 11 without protest and did not avail of the reference under
D Section 18 for further enhancement while other covered by the same
notification had the award of enhanced compensation. He has been given
right to make a written application to the L.A.O. within 30 days from the
date of the award of the Court excluding the time taken to obtain a certified
copy of the award of the court. It is new fairly well settled legal proposition
E that the award of the court is the award of the reference court under
Section 18. That is clear from the statement of the objects and reasons as
also from the unequivocal language used in ~ection 28-A(l) of the Act, It
is equally well settled legal position that once time has has begun to run.
it will continue to run until it is stayed by an appropriate court. The
remedy, thereafter stands barred. The proviso to Section 28- A(l) only
F excludes the time Actually taken in obtaining the certified copy, while
computing the period of three months limitation prescribed under Section
28-1(1). In other words, the time taken to obtain certified copy alone is to
be excluded in computation of limitation uf three months. The reference
in Jose Antonio's case. was confined to the question as to which of the two
G awards, when there are more than one award passed by the reference
Court in respect of the land covered under the same notification published
under Section 4(1), would give cause of action and to the question limita-
tion to file application under Section 28-A(l). In other words, the question
therein of the two dales of two awards, furnishes the period of limitation
H of three months. In the present case in hand that question docs not arise.

f
SMT. BHAGTI v. STATE 579

There are no two awards of the reference Court. In Scheduled Caste Co-op. A
"" Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 730, a Bench
of three Judges of this Court held that "it is obvious on a plain reading of
sub-Section ( 1) of Section 28~A that it applies only to those claimants who
had failed to seek a reference under Section 18. The redetermination has
to be done by the Collection on the basis of the compensation awarded by B
the Court in the reference under Section 18 and an application in that
behalf has to be made to the Collector within 30 days from the date of the
award. The order. of the High Court does not give right to file application
under Section 28A(l).

c
In State of Punjab v. Raghbir Singh & Ors., [1995] Supp. 2 SCC 679
on similar facts the award was accepted without protest and no reference
was sought for by the respondents. On reference under Section 18 at the
instance of others, the District Judge confirmed the award of the Collector
but on appeal the High Court enhanced the compensation. When applica-
tion under Section 28-A(l) came to be filed after the the High Court D
judgment, it was held that the remedy under Section 28-A was unavailable
as the decree of the High Court is not that of the reference Court under
Section 18. The limitation period had begun to run from the date of the
award of the District Judge. In State of Punjab v. Raglmbir Singh, [1989] 3
SCR 316 at 339, a Constitution Bench had held that the words "any such E
award" cannot have any reference to the appellate orders of the High Court
or of the Supreme Court. In the context of Section 50(2), it must have
reference to the award of the Collector or the Civil Court made between
April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. In other words, the Constitution
Bench affirmed that the award of the Court is of the Reference Court or
F
the Collector as the case be. In D. Venkamma & Ors. v. Special Tehsildar
(LA) Unit-IV, Janagareddiguden~ WG. District, Elugi, A.P., (1996] 1 SCC
85, under similar facts as in this case, the award. came to be made by the
District Judge on reference at the instance of others covered under the
same notification but no application came to be made immediately there-
after. The Civil Court enhanced compensation on November 26, 1983. The G
High Court's award was made on February l, 1989. Thereafter, on May 12,
1989, application under Section 28-A(l) was filed seeking redetermination
of the compensation. It was held that court referred in Section 28 is the
-{
reference Court under Section 18 and not the High Court and th~t,
therefore, the application filed, thought within limitation from the date of H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 1 S.C.R.
+
'
· A the High Court's judgment, was not maintainable. In U.P. State Industrial
Development Corpn. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 766, an ~-
application for re-determination of the compensation was filed after the
award of the reference Court, was pending appeal in the High Court. The
appellant objected to the re-determination. A Bench of three Judges of this
B Court had held that since appeal was pending, the Collector was not
justified in redetermining the compensation. The award of the Collector
was set aside. The matter was directed to be kept pending till the appeal
was disposed of in the High Court. In State of Maharashtra v. Manakchand
Pyannal & Ors., [1996) 1 SCC 297, same direction was given to keep the .-
application under Section 26-A pending till the appeal against the refer-
C ence Court awarded was decided by the High Court. In State of Punjab v.
Raghbir Singh & Ors., (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 679 it was held that an applica-
tion for re-determination of compensation can be made only on the basis
of the judgment of the reference Court and the same must be made within
the limitation period prescribed by Section 28-A(l) of the Act. Therein,
D the facts were that award was made by the Collector on December 22, 1983.
The reference Court by judgment dated September 10, 1990 enhanced the
compensation. Application filed on January 2, 1991 under Section 28-A )..
seeking re-deterllllination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment
of the High Court,
I
was dismissed by. the Collector. On revision. application,
E the High Court directed by order dated August 14, 1992 re-determination
of the compensation on the basis of its earlier judgment dated September
12, 1990. On those facts this Court held that the application for re-deter-
mination was barred by limitation. Appeal was allowed and the order of
the High Court was set aside.

F Thus only those claimants who had failed to apply for a reference
under Section· 18 of the Act are conferred with the right to apply for
redetermination under Section 28-A(l). But all those who had not only
sought a reference under Section 18 but had also filed an appeal in the
High Court against the award made by the reference court are not entitled
G to avail of the remedy under Section 28A. Equally, the right and remedy
of re-determination would be available only when the reference Court
under Section 18 has enhanced the compensation in an award and decree
under section 26. Within three months from the date of the reference court
excluding the time taken under proviso, the applicant whose land was
H acquired under the same notification but who failed to avail the remedy
21 J-
SMT. BHAGTI v. STATE 581

under Section 18, would be entitled to avail the right and remedy under A
Section 28A. The order and judgment of the High Court does not give such
right. Thus, this Court held that Section 28-A does not apply to an order
made by the High Court for re-determination of the compensation. Thus,
we hold that the question of reference to the Constitution Bench does not
arise. The claimants are not entitled to make an application for re-deter- B
•
> rnination of compensation under Section 28-A(l) after the Judgment of the
High Court; nor are the claimants entitled to avail of that aw.ard which is
more beneficial to the claimants, i.e., the High Court judgment

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
c
T.N.A. Petition dismissed.