CWP No. 5662 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5662 of 1988 Date of decision: 11.07.2011 Phagwara Improvement Trust ….. PETITIONER VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.S.K.Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Vide Award dated 15.12.1987, benefit as per the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was extended in favour of respondent No. 2. Against the said Award, this writ petition has been filed. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that initially, an Award was passed on 27.01.1977 qua land of respondent No. 2 and others. Dissatisfied with the said Award, respondent No. 2 moved an CWP No. 5662 of 1988 2 application under Section 18 of the Act and the Land Acquisition Tribunal, vide Award dated 19.02.1985, enhanced the amount of compensation. It is further stated that the compensation, so determined, along with other statutory benefits was paid to respondent No. 2. Thereafter, it appears that some other land owners also moved the Land Acquisition Collector for enhancement of compensation. Vide Award dated 05.05.1987, the Tribunal enhanced the amount of compensation. By taking note of the same, application under Section 28-A of the Act was moved by respondent No. 2 to get benefit of that Award. That application was allowed vide the impugned Award in this case. It is apparent from the record that vide the Award under challenge, along with respondent No. 2, benefit was given to some other land owners also. The petitioner in this case, qua other land owners filed CWP No. 827 of 1988, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.01.2009 by observing as under:- “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once land owners had already sought reference under Section 18 and compensation had been determined by the Tribunal, application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act was not thereafter maintainable. Reliance has been placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mewa Ram and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45 and Babua Ram and others v. State of UP and another, (1995) 2 SCC 689, holding that Section 28-A of the 1894 Act was not attracted where land owners had already preferred a reference which had been decided on merits. 4. None appears for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who have been duly served and have filed a reply. CWP No. 5662 of 1988 3 5. In the reply filed, it has been stated that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (supra) was not applicable. 6. From the facts enumerated above, it is patent that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had preferred reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act which fact, specifically averred in para 3 of the petition, has not been disputed in the corresponding para of the reply. Thus, the matter is fully covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above.” We are of the opinion that this case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment mentioned above. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and the impugned Award dated 15.12.1987 stands quashed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE July 11, 2011 pj