CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10292 OF 1994 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 05 , 2011. Parties Name Jagdish Singh ...PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, D.A.G., Punjab Jasbir Singh, J. JUDGMENT This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Petitions No. 10292 and 8268, both of the year 1994, involving similar facts. For facility of dictating judgment, facts are being taken from CWP No. 10292 of 1994. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash and order dated May 10, 1993, vide which application filed by him under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) for redetermination of compensation in terms of a judgment passed by this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10292 OF 1994 -2 Court in Regular First Appeal No. 19 of 1983 on May 13, 1987, was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Heard. It is case of the petitioner that the respondent -State vide notification dated January 25, 1978, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1891, (in short the Act) proposed to acquire 57 Bighas of land for a public purpose, namely, for the extension of new Grain Market at Nabha. Thereafter a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. Possession of the land was taken on January 30, 1978, and an award was passed on March 27, 1978. Other co-sharers namely Hakam Singh etc. filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. Their application was dismissed on July 28, 1982 by the Additional District Judge at Sangrur. They went in appeal, which was decided by this Court on May 13, 1987 (Regular First Appeal No. 19 of 1983) and the compensation amount was enhanced. When an application under Section 18 of the Act was pending, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as one of the applicants. That application was dismissed on August 18, 1981. It is case of the petitioner that litigation regarding ownership rights in the land in dispute was pending between him and Hakam Singh etc. and on account of that, he failed to move an application under Section 18 of the Act or thereafter under Section 28-A of the Act. The said litigation came to an end on February 25, 1987. It is case of the petitioner that so far as other cosharers , i.e., Hakam Singh etc. are concerned, they had received their share of compensation whereas the same has not been given to him( the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10292 OF 1994 -3 petitioner). Under the circumstances, mentioned above, he filed an application on August 24, 1992, under Section 28-A of the Act with a prayer that the amount of compensation be redetermined and paid to him in terms of judgment passed by this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 19 of 1983, rendered on May 13, 1987. The said application was dismissed. Hence this writ petition. In the reply filed, order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector has been justified and it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. As per facts on record, acquisition of the land and filing of an application by the co-sharers under Section 18 of the Act was within the notice of the petitioner. He also moved an application in the above said application before the Court of Additional District Judge at Sangrur for being impleaded as a party. That application was dismissed on August 18, 1981. Other co-sharers filed an appeal in this Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated May 13, 1987. Admittedly, dispute regarding ownership of the land in dispute was going on between the petitioner and Hakam Singh etc., which came to an end on February 25, 1987 holding the petitioner as owner in the land in dispute to the extent of 1/9th share. Even thereafter the petitioner did nothing. No attempt was made to know about the pending litigation for enhancement of compensation initiated by his cosharers, which came to an end when order was passed in their appeal by this Court on May 13, 1987. An application to get compensation, as per provisions of Section 28-A of the Act was filed in the month of August, 1992, which we feel was rightly dismissed by the Land Acquisition CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10292 OF 1994 -4 Collector as the above provision clearly stipulates that the application for redetermination of compensation could be made within three months from the date of passing of an order. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. And another v. Marri Venkaiah and others, (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 280, while interpreting the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act have held that the limitation of three months would start running from the date of passing of an order and not from the date of knowledge. In the present case, for delay no explanation has been given. Otherwise also, it is doubtful as to whether after passing of an order by the High Court, the petitioner can move an application under Section 28-A of the Act. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 05, 2011. DKC