In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 12486 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 01, 2009 Lachhman Dass … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand. Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) After the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in furtherance of a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 13.06.2008, the petitioner moved an application under Section 28-A of the Act seeking compensation in terms of the award of the reference Court dated 13.06.2008. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act was declined on 26.12.2008 by the Executive Officer, Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda, on account of the fact that the petitioner, who CWP No. 12486 of 2009 had filed the aforesaid application, had earlier received compensation on the basis of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 23.12.1988 without any protest. The aforesaid determination rendered by the Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Bathinda, on 26.12.2008 is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are satisfied that the basis depicted for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, as has been recorded in the impugned order dated 26.12.2008, is not sustainable in law. It is open to every interested person, who is affected by proceedings for acquiring the land under the provisions of the Act, to seek compensation in terms of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, as also enhanced compensation in terms of the award of the reference Court subject to the claim having been made within the period of limitation stipulated in Section 28-A of the Act. In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 26.12.2008 has to be set aside. The same is, accordingly, set aside. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we consider it just and appropriate to direct respondent No. 3 i.e. Land Acquisition Collector, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Bathinda, to reconsider the claim of the petitioner made in his application filed under Section 28-A of the Act dated 05.09.2008. Needless to mention, that the competent authority shall pass a well-reasoned speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the competent authority arrives at the conclusion that compensation in terms of the award of the reference Court dated 13.06.2008 is payable to the petitioner, the 2 CWP No. 12486 of 2009 competent authority shall calculate and disburse the amount found due within a further period of one month. Disposed of accordingly. Order dasti on payment of usual charges. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge September 01, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3