CWP No. 18985 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18985 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.07.2010 Union of India through Defence Estate Officer, Jalandhar Circle, Jalandhar ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S.Bishnoi, Sr. Panel Counsel, for the petitioner- Union of India. Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) With the consent of counsel of the parties, the present writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Union of India has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash order dated 31.07.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 allowing an application of the respondent No. 3 for redetermination of CWP No. 18985 of 2008 (O&M) 2 compensation moved under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). It is not disputed before us that a vast tract of land was proposed to be acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 26.04.1978, including 17 Kanals 12 Marlas land of respondent No. 3. After the disposal of the objections under Section 5-A of the Act, declaration to acquire that land was issued on 07.03.1981. The Award was announced by the Collector on 28.05.1982. Respondent No. 3 did not move an application under Section 18 of the Act. Some of the right holders moved applications under Section 18 of the Act, which were disposed of and compensation was enhanced by the Tribunal. Thereafter, applications filed by other land owners under Section 18 of the Act were disposed of by the Tribunal on 11.09.1992. Respondent No. 3 then moved an application under Section 28-A of the Act in the month of November, 1992, which remained pending and was not decided by the authorities. When order dated 31.07.2006 (Annexure P-1) was passed, this fact could not be noted by the Collector because the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte, when it failed to appear before respondent No. 2. When notice of motion was issued in this case, following contentions of the counsel for the petitioner were noted by this Court on 10.11.2008:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are confined to redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Hukam Chand vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 3275 CWP No. 18985 of 2008 (O&M) 3 and Union of India vs. Bant Ram, AIR 1996 SC 3327. He has further stated that the judgment in the case of Dayal Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC1140 is entirely on different footing as it proceeds on the lines as to whether the acquisition made under the Defence of India Act, 1952 would attract the provisions of the Act or not.” Respondent No. 3 has moved C.M. Nos. 5895-96 of 2010 in this writ petition, wherein he has stated that in fact, a wrong statement was made. As per averments of the parties, admittedly the application under Section 28-A of the Act was filed by respondent No. 3 in the month of November, 1992. Notice of these applications was issued and on 28.06.2010, following directions were issued to Sh. Bishnoi by this Court::- “Mr. Bishnoi is directed to verify the correctness of documents annexed with the application and if documents are genuine, the writ petition will be heard on merit on the date fixed.” Sh. Bishnoi very fairly states that factum of moving application by respondent No. 3 under Section 28-A of the Act in the month of November, 1992 is not in dispute. If that is so, we feel that the claim of respondent No. 3 to get enhanced compensation equivalent to the other right holders, whose land was acquired by the petitioner, cannot be taken away. Against order dated 31.07.2006 (Annexure P-1), Sh. Bishnoi has failed to raise any objection as to how the order is wrong and respondent No. 3 is not entitled to get the enhanced amount of compensation. CWP No. 18985 of 2008 (O&M) 4 Once respondent No. 3 has moved an application, as stipulated under Section 28-A of the Act within the period of limitation (as he had filed the same in the month of November, 1992), the benefit of enhancement of compensation cannot be declined to him. In order dated 31.07.2006 (Annexure P-1), the Collector has wrongly referred that the application in fact was moved in 2006. May be the said fact was wrongly mentioned in its Award, however in view of the facts mentioned above, we are not inclined to interfere in the order regarding enhancement of compensation. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is directed to release the amount as assessed by the Collector in favour of respondent No. 3 preferably within a period of two months' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE July 12, 2010 pj