RFA No. 24 of 1993 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: April 30 , 2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 24 of 1993 (O&M) Rulia .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 200 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana .. Appellant Vs. Rulia .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the land owner. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of above mentioned two appeals-- one filed by the State and another by the land owner. The proceedings arise out of application filed by the land owner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking re-determination of compensation for the acquired land relying upon a judgment of this Court pertaining to the same acquisition. Briefly, the facts are that land in question, situated in village Taraf Afgana, District Karnal was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 30.8.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') passed the award on 14.2.1979. Some of the land owners filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act and their reference petitions were decided by the learned Reference Court and even R.F.A. No. 654 of 1982 filed by Hukam Chand and others was decided by this Court. As the land owner in the present case did not file any reference under Section 18 of the Act, he filed petition under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of compensation by relying upon the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 654 of RFA No. 24 of 1993 [ 2] 1982. The Collector referred the matter under Section 28-A(3) of the Act to the learned court below. Vide impugned order, the learned Reference Court held the land owner to be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 39/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the State submitted that admittedly, in the present case, the land owner had filed application for re-determination of compensation for the acquired land placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in RFA No. 654 of 1982, decided on 9.10.1987. In view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and another v. Land Acquisition Collector and another, (1996) 1 SCC 88, such a claim on the basis of judgment of appellate court was not maintainable, as re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act could be sought only on the basis of award of the Reference Court. Accordingly, the impugned award of the learned court below determining the compensation placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of this Court is totally without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the land owner very fairly did not dispute the enunciation of law, as has been referred to by learned counsel for the State. Keeping in view the aforesaid admitted facts and judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese's case (supra), the application filed by the land owner for re-determination of compensation placing reliance on the judgment of the appellate court was not maintainable. Accordingly, the impugned award of the learned court below is set aside. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the State has been accepted and even the application filed by the land owner under Section 28-A of the Act has been held to be not maintainable, the appeal filed by the land owner seeking further enhancement of compensation does not survive. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.4.2009 mk RFA No. 24 of 1993 [ 3]