C.W.P. NO. 3463 OF 1987. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3463 of 1987. Date of Decision: 5th December, 2008. Hakam Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners through Mr. V.K.Kataria, Advocate Versus Roshan Lal ...Respondent through Ms. Aman Preet Sandhu, Advocate for Union of India. Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl. AG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3463 of 1987, 6501, 9918 of 1989, 16384 of 1990 and 5740 of 1991 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 3463 of 1987. [2]. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 27.4.1987 [Annexure P-3] passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar – respondent No. 2 whereby their application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for granting them enhanced amount of compensation, has been dismissed primarily on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. [3]. The petitioners who claim themselves to be permanently settled at Chandigarh, were right-holders in the land measuring 49 kanals 8 marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 5894, 5895/1, 5895/2 and 5896/1 and situated within the revenue estate of Faridkot [Punjab]. The State Government issued notification under Section 4 of the C.W.P. NO. 3463 OF 1987. ::-2-:: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short 'the Act'] on 27.8.1974 proposing to acquire the aforementioned land for the Central Government, followed by the notification under Section 6 of the Act. The award dated 28.5.1975 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar granting compensation @ Rs.15000/- per acre. Most of the right-holders preferred references under Section 18 of the Act which were accepted by the learned District Judge, Faridkot to the extent that the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs.17,250/- per acre. Some of the right-holders then approached this Court in RFA No. 1637 of 1979, decided on 6.11.1980 whereby the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per acre for Block 'B' and Rs.60,000/- for block 'A'. The appeals of some more right-holders were thereafter decided by this Court vide judgment dated 6.2.1985 in the same terms [Annexure P1]. [4]. The admitted facts are that the petitioners remained satisfied with the compensation awarded by respondent No. 2. They neither moved any reference under Section 18 of the Act nor, it is obvious, approached this Court for enhancement of the compensation. [5]. Section 28-A came to be inserted in the Act vide Act No. 64 of 1984 w.e.f. 24.9.1984 and the same reads as follows:- “28-A 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 C.W.P. NO. 3463 OF 1987. ::-3-:: 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] xx xx [3] xx xx” [6]. Taking advantage of Section 28-A of the Act, the petitioners moved an application before respondent No.2 to grant them the same amount of compensation as was awarded by this Court in the Regular First Appeals of other land-owners. Their aforementioned application has been dismissed by the Collector being barred by limitation. [7]. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. [8]. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered view that these writ petitions must fail. In Babu Ram and Ors. V State of U.P. & Another [1995] 2 SCC, 689, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that Section 28-A of the Act is prospective in operation. It was clarified that the benefit of Section 28-A can be invoked only if the reference Court grants compensation in excess of the amount awarded under Section 11 of the Act after 24.9.1984. In the present case, it is the conceded position that reference under Section 18 of the Act stood decided some where in the year 1978-79. The petitioners, thus, can take no advantage of Section 28-A of the Act. [9]. In State of Punjab v Raghbir Singh & Ors., 1995 Supp C.W.P. NO. 3463 OF 1987. ::-4-:: [2] SCC, 679, it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that the application for re-determination of the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act can be made only on the basis of judgment of the reference Court and the same must be made within limitation period prescribed by the proviso to Section 28-A, i.e., within a period of three months. It was reiterated in Smt. Bhagti [deceased] through her Lrs v The State of Haryana, JT 1997[2] SC, 291 that an application under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of the compensation can be made only when reference Court under Section 18 of the Act has enhanced the compensation and such an application has to be moved within three months from the date of the Reference Court award excluding the time spent in obtaining a copy of the award. [10]. Proviso to Section 28-A of the Act does not confer any power upon the Court to condone the delay even if there exists any “sufficient cause”. [11]. It is the conceded position that no application under Section 28-A of the Act was moved by the petitioners within the prescribed period of limitation. In fact, their application was after delay of years together, therefore, respondent No. 2 has rightly dismissed the same being barred by limitation. [12]. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. December 5, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE