In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 10201 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 07, 2009 Tej Kaur and others. … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand. Present: Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) The land of the father-in-law of petitioner No.1 and grandfather of the remaining petitioners was acquired by the respondents by issuing notifications dated 30.06.1976 and 31.03.1977 (under the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30.03.1978 awarded compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. Other statutory financial benefits available to the land owners were also ordered to be paid to them. Neither the grandfather of the petitioners nor any of his legal heirs including the petitioners herein claim any enhancement by making a C.W.P. No.10201 of 2008 reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). References were, however, made by some other land owners whose land was acquired. The reference Court enhanced the market value of the land from Rs.20,000/- (as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector) to Rs.1,40,000/-. The reference Court also directed payment of other statutory benefits available to the land owners. It is the case of the petitioners, that the grandfather of the petitioners i.e. the person who owned the land which would have eventually devolved to the petitioner, had died. It is also the case of the petitioners, that the husband of petitioner no.1 and the father of the remaining petitioners have also died, and as such, the petitioners never came to know about the order passed by the reference Court on 17.04.1987. The aforesaid order is stated to have come to their knowledge and notice only on 20.08.2006 whereupon the petitioners filed an application under Section 28A of the Act on 18/20.10.2006 seeking the compensation at the rate determined by the reference Court vide its order dated 18.04.1987. This claim of the petitioners has been declined by asserting, that a claim under Section 28A of the Act could have been made only within a period of 90 days from the date of the order passed by the reference Court, whereas, in the present case, the petitioners had made an application under Section 28A of the Act after about 19 years and 6 months of the passing of the order by the reference Court (dated 18.04.1987). The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that the period of three months specified in Section 28A of the Act should not be determined with reference to the date when the reference is decided under Section 18 of the Act, but within three months from the 2 C.W.P. No.10201 of 2008 date of knowledge acquired by the land owners (and/or the legal heirs of the land owners). Section 28A of the Act is being extracted hereunder:- “28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court – (1) Wherein 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 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.” Insofar as the issue canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the legal position in respect thereto has been declared by the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & another vs. Marri Venkaiah & others, JT 2003(6) SC 179, wherein the Apex Court has inter-alia held as under:- “7. Plain language of the aforesaid section would only mean that the period of limitation is three months from the date of the award of the court. It is also provided that in computing the period of three months, the day on which the award was 3 C.W.P. No.10201 of 2008 pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the award is to be excluded. Therefore, the aforesaid provision crystallizes that application under section 28A is to be filed within three months from the date of the award by the court by only excluding the time requisite for obtaining copy. Hence, it is difficult to infer further exclusion of time on the ground of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant.” A perusal of the proposition of law declared by the Apex Court reveals, that the period of limitation for making an application under Section 28A of the Act has to be within three months from the date of the award of the reference Court. The only period that can be added thereto is the days taken by the party to obtain a certified copy of the order passed by the reference Court. It has clearly been enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, that further extension of time on the ground of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant is impermissible. In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accept that the period of time to make application under Section 28A of the Act could have been extended beyond the period of 90 days insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The petitioners approached this Court after more than 19 years from the date when the reference Court enhanced the compensation payable to the land owners (on 18.04.1987). In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge October 07, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4