RFA No.543 of 1990 (10 cases) 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 543 of 1990 Decided on August 22,2008. Sukh Lal and others --- Appellants. vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents. Present: Mr.Chander Hans Yadav,Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Mittal,Advocate,for applicants. for the appellants. Mr.H.S.Hooda, A.G,Haryana, with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra,Sr.D.A.G.Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of RFA Nos.543,642, 643, 713 to 718 of 1990 and 1572 of 1991, as common questions of law and facts are involved . Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act'), dated 16.3.1978 and the corrigendum notification dated 26.4.1979, land falling in villages, namely Kanwah, Bilochpura, Nawada, Redhuwas, Sahajanpur and Jadwana was acquired for public purposes, namely, to construct Bhindawas Lake. The Collector under the Act, rendered his award dated 23.4.1980 classifying the land into various categories and assessed the market value for each category of land. RFA No.543 of 1990 (10 cases) 2 Bhagmal son of Sher Singh resident of village Redhuwas and others moved an application under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was referred to the District Judge, Rohtak. Sh. D.D.Yadav, Addl. District Judge, Rohtak, vide his award dated 27.4.1988, ordered enhancement of compensation in respect of the 'Bhur' quality of the acquired land. This being in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, the appellants herein moved the Collector under Section 28-A of the Act, for redetermination of the amount of compensation payable to them which was rejected by him on 30.1.1989 and referred the matter to the Civil Court. The appellants had produced Ex.P-1 a copy of judgment rendered by Sh.D.D.Yadav, Addl.District Judge, on 27.4.1988 in L.A.C.No. 266/4 of 1987 Bhagmal and others v. State of Haryana, Ex. P-2 a copy of the order of this Court passed in RFA No.1745 of 1982 Laxmi Narain and others v. State of Haryana, Ex.P-3 copy of the judgment of Sh.J.D.Chandana, Addl.District Judge,Rohtak, rendered on 29.9.1989 in Chattar Singh etc v. State of Haryana. No evidence was led by the respondents-State. In the instant case, land of village Redhuwas is involved. The Collector in his order dated 30.1.1989 recorded a finding that compensation of the land of village Redhuwas was given by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, as per the main award No.44 dated 10.8.1978 and supplementary award No.78 dated 18.11.1980. Since no one had filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, therefore, the reference Court did not agree to enhance the compensation awarded by the Collector in respect RFA No.543 of 1990 (10 cases) 3 of the land of village Redhuwas. The reference Court vide its impugned order held that the appellants are not entitled for re-determination of compensation on the ground that there was a separate award passed in respect of the land of village Redhuwas, therefore, the compensation enhanced in the matters of other village, though covered by the same notification cannot be awarded. Before adverting to his arguments, counsel for the appellants has referred to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act, which is produced as under:- “Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court- (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4 , sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18,by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2)The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub- section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the RFA No.543 of 1990 (10 cases) 4 persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub- section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28, shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18”. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants are entitled for redetermination of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court in which an amount, in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act pertaining to the same notification under Section 4 of the Act has been awarded, although the land belongs to different villages. Counsel has also referred to Ex.P-1 i.e. decision in the case of Bhagmal by Sh.D.D.Yadav, Addl.District Judge, of the acquired land situated in village Sahajanpur regarding which the Collector has given his award No.2 of 23.4.1980. He has also referred to Ex.P-2 a copy of the judgment of this Court passed in RFA No. 1745 of 1982, directed against the order of Sh.S.B.Ahuja, Addl.District Judge, Rohtak, passed on 11.8.1982 in L.A.C.No. 123/4 of 1982 pertaining to the acquired land of village Bilochpura. He has also referred to Ex.P-3, which is an award by the Court of Sh.S.N.Chadha,Addl.District Judge,Rohtak, dated 17.9.1984, which pertains to the land of village Kanwah. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that although no reference has been made under Section 18 of the RFA No.543 of 1990 (10 cases) 5 Act pertaining to village Redhuwas, yet the appellants are entitled for re- deteremintion of compensation on the basis of excess amount having been awarded by the Civil Court over and above the award of the Collector in the same acquisition for the purpose of redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court reported as Luttful Haque vs. Collector (The Prescribed Authority, under the Land Acquisition Act) and another, Opposite Parties, AIR 1995 Allahabad 93, to the effect that if compensation for acquired land is determined under two separate awards in which compensation under one award is enhanced on reference, then benefit of re- determination cannot be denied to landowners on mere ground that there were two separate awards as regard the acquired land. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has argued that the application under Section 28-A of the Act, is not maintainable because award of village Redhuwas is different from the award rendered in respect of other villages though acquired under the same notification. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is an admitted fact that land of six villlages namely Kanwah, Bilochpura, Nawada, Redhuwas, Sahajanpur and Jadwana was acquired by one notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It is also admitted that land owners of village Redhuwas did not file any objections under Section 18 of the Act, therefore, there is no enhancement of compensation by the Civil Court. It too is an admitted fact that there is an enhancement of compensation by the Civil Court in respect of the land of RFA No.543 of 1990 (10 cases) 6 other villages for which the appellants have placed on record documents Ex. P-1 to P-3. It is not disputed that no evidence has been led by the respondents-State. Therefore, the question involved in this case is whether in a case where land of various villages has been acquired for the same public purpose by the same notification and the compensation has further been enhanced by the Civil Court, then whether holder of the Collectors award who has not filed a reference shall be entitled to re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act ? The statement of objects and reasons of Bill No.63 of 1984 which had been introduced to amend the Land Acquisition Act in the Lok Sabha on 6th August,1984 indicates that the reason behind the amendment proposing to insert Section 28-A in the Land Acquisition Act was that the right of reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act was not usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and was usually exercised only by comparatively affluent land owners and this caused considerable inequality in the payment of compensation of the same or similar quality of land to different interested parties. The aforesaid objects and reasons clarified that it was proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek redetermination of compensation once any one of them had obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act as it exits today was inserted without any change by Section 19 of Act No. 68 of 1984. RFA No.543 of 1990 (10 cases) 7 The benefits contemplated under the provision contained in Section 28-A of the Act, is intended and meant for inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, therefore, the Act being socio beneficial legislation, it should be construed liberally so that benefit may extend to every person whose land has been acquired. In Luttful Haque 's Case (supra) , the land measuring 10 acres situated in villages Lakhanpura, alias Abhianpur, Rewara Paraspur, and Ahmadpur Phulwaria was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, dated 5.4.1978. The Collector gave different awards in respect of the land situated in different villages . The land owners of village Ahmadpur Phulwaria did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act,whereas the compensation in respect of land of village Rewara Paraspur was enhanced on reference. Therefore, an application under Section 28-A of the Act was filed alleging that the land in dispute belonging to the claimants form part of entire land which had been acquired in the land acquisition proceedings initiated vide the same notification for the same purpose, namely for construction of Government Carpet Institute at Bhadohi in District Varanasi. The compensation in respect of the part of that land has been enhanced under the award of the Civil Court vide award published as Land Acquisition Reference No.159 of 1984 pertaining to village Rewara Paraspur,but the application for redetermination was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, on the ground that the compensation awarded to the RFA No.543 of 1990 (10 cases) 8 claimants was under a different award in respect of a land situated in village Ahmadpur Phulwaria which never became subject matter of any reference. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed the petitions while observing thus:- “In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the mere fact that the total amount of compensation for the entire 10 acres of land acquired for the public purpose of constructing the Government Carpet Institute at Bhadohi was determined under separate awards could not be deemed to furnish a valid ground for denying the benefit of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act to the petitioner. Since the respondent No.1 itself had noticed that the enhanced compensation had been awarded to the other person affected by the same Scheme, there could be no justification for refusing to reopen the matter relating to the award of compensation to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 28 A of the Act and depriving him of the statutory right secured in his favour thereunder, specially when it is not disputed that the petitioner had not initiated any proceedings for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act”. In my opinion, the law laid down by the Division Bench in Luttful Haque's Case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. No other point has been argued by the counsel for the appellants. Thus, in view of the above, the present appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Court below and that of the Collector are hereby set aside. The Collector is directed to re-determine the RFA No.543 of 1990 (10 cases) 9 amount of compensation payable to the appellants and proceed to dispose of their applications on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. August 22,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge