C. R. No. 649 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 649 of 2004 Date of Decision : July 02, 2010 Baaz Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Narender Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 and 4. Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondent no.3. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 110.09.2003 passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa, thereby dismissing application filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short – the Act). C. R. No. 649 of 2004 2 Land was acquired for establishing commercial market of auto vehicles and for commercial purposes in Sirsa for Municipal Council, Sirsa – respondent no.2. References under Section 18 of the Act were filed by different persons for enhancement of compensation. Punjab Wakf Board – respondent no.3 also filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. Appeal against the Award of Reference Court, LPA against the judgment of Single Bench and SLPs against the judgments in LPAs were also filed and were ultimately disposed of by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.04.1996 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners claiming themselves to be lessees over part of the acquired land filed application under Section 28-A of the Act before the land Acquisition Collector for disbursement of compensation to them alleging that they were cultivating 1/9th share of 33 kanals 09 marlas acquired land and therefore, as lessees, they are entitled to compensation. The said application has been dismissed by the Land Acquisition Collector by passing the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners being lessees are entitled to compensation to the extent of 75% of the acquired land under their cultivation. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of C. R. No. 649 of 2004 3 Municipal Committee, Sirsa vs. Hazara Ram reported as 2002 (1) LACC 203. On careful consideration, I find no merit in the aforesaid contention. Judgment in the case of Hazara Ram (supra) has no applicability because in that case, Land Acquisition Collector had already ordered apportionment of compensation between the tenants and land owners. Pursuant thereto, the tenants were held entitled to enhanced compensation in the same ratio. In the instant case, however, the petitioners have not been awarded any compensation in the Award of Land Acquisition Collector regarding acquisition of the land. The petitioners also did not file any reference under Section 30 of the Act. Consequently, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation regarding the acquired land. Section 28-A of the Act is meant for the persons, who are entitled to compensation of acquired land under the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector regarding the acquisition of land, but do not file reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and on reference filed by some other land owners, compensation is enhanced. In that case, the persons who have not filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, are also entitled to claim enhanced compensation as per Award of the Reference Court made on reference of other owners relating to same acquisition, by filing application under Section 28-A of the Act. In the instant case, however, the petitioners were not awarded any compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector, and therefore, the question C. R. No. 649 of 2004 4 of granting enhanced compensation to the petitioners does not arise. The application filed under Section 28-A of the Act by the petitioners was completely misconceived and not maintainable. In addition to the aforesaid, application under Section 28-A of the Act was also barred by limitation as the same could be filed within three months from the date of Award of the Reference Court. In this case, Award by Reference Court was made on 28.02.1986, as submitted by counsel for the petitioners, but application under Section 28-A of the Act was filed by the petitioners on 25.03.1997 i.e. more than 11 years after the passing of the Award by Reference Court. Even after passing of judgment dated 22.04.1996 (Annexure P-1) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, application under Section 28-A of the Act by the petitioners was not filed within limitation period of three months, but was filed more than 11 months after the passing of the judgment by the Supreme Court. Thus, the application moved by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act was hopelessly barred by limitation. It is also debatable whether jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked because this Court exercises power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over Courts and Tribunals situated within its territory. It is debatable whether the Land Acquisition Collector exercising power under Section 28- A of the Act can be said to be Court or Tribunal over which this Court can C. R. No. 649 of 2004 5 exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. July 02, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE