IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.385 of 2011 Date of decision : October 19, 2011 Mangi Ram and others …Petitioners. Versus H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Naresh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioners were co-owners with certain persons, in respect of some land that had been acquired, for a public purpose. Compensation for the acquired land was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Alongwith the land of the petitioners and their co-owners, land of some other persons had also been acquired and those other persons got made a reference to the District Judge, for enhancement of compensation, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned District Judge enhanced the compensation. Petitioners and their co- owners, as already noticed, having not got made any reference, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, some co-owner(s) of the present petitioners made applications, under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Act, for re-determination of their compensation, on the basis of the award of the District Judge, given in the reference made by some other persons, whose land had also been acquired, alongwith the land of the petitioners and their co-owners. Petitioners did not make any application, under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, within the time prescribed in the said provision, though in the applications, under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, moved by their co-owners, it was stated that re-determination of the compensation was being sought in respect of the shares of not only those, who made such applications, but also their co-owners. Petitioners then applied for impleadment as party to the application, under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, moved by their co-sharers. That application was moved, after the expiry of the time, prescribed in Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The same has been dismissed, vide order dated 27th June, 2011, copy Annexure P-3, on the ground that it is barred by time. Petitioners are aggrieved by this order of the Land Acquisition Collector. So, they have filed the present petition, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, appears on behalf of the respondent. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. …3… 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners, being co-owners with the persons, who have sought re-determination of compensation, by making application, under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, are automatically entitled to re- determination of compensation, in respect of their shares, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jalandhar Improvement Trust versus State of Punjab and others, AIR 2003 SC 620, and if it is so Land Acquisition Collector ought to have allowed the application of the present petitioners, for impleadment as party to application, under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, for re-determination of the compensation, in accordance with the award of the District Judge. 5. Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not entitle the petitioners to become party to the proceedings, under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, by making an application for impleadment, when such application, for impleadment, was barred by time, prescribed in Section 28-A of the Act. Therefore, the judgment would not come to the rescue of the petitioners, so far as their claim for impleadment as party to the said application is concerned. However, the question, whether petitioners are entitled to re- determination of compensation, in respect of their shares in the acquired property, in view of the aforesaid …4… judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, even if they have not made any application, under Section 28-A, is required to be determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and he will determine such a question, as and when the petitioners approach him with such a request. In that event order of dismissal of application, for impleadment, which is under challenge in the present petition, will not be made a basis for rejection of petitioners’ claim, as the said order has been passed only on the ground of limitation, without considering the impact of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. With the aforesaid observation, present petition is dismissed. October 19, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J