Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24907 of 2019 Petitioner :- Abdul Hakim And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Chandra Bhan Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Per: Hon’ble Prakash Padia J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a mandamus directing the respondent No.3 namely Upper District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)/Special Land Acquisition Officer, District Gautam Budh Nagar to decide Land Reference No. of 2017 (Abdul Hakim and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1894”) expeditiously.
3. The facts, in brief, as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioners are the owner over 1/2 share of the land Gata No.116 area 1-8- 0 Bigha, situated at village Kakrala Khwaspur, Pargana and Tahsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The aforesaid land was acquired by the State Government in the year 1983. The award was also published on 28.11.1984 and compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.24,033.10/- per Bigha.
4. It is contended that the petitioner is illiterate man and had no knowledge about law, as such he was not able to file any reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. It is further contended that the award dated 28.11.1984 was challenged by certain land owners by way of Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as L.A.R.). All the references were clubbed together. The L.A.R. No.6 of 2002 (Fateh Mohammad Vs. State of U.P.) was decided as leading L.A.R. The aforesaid L.A.R. was decided by the Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide judgement and order dated 12.03.2016. The compensation was given to the tenure holders at the rate of Rs.297.50/- per square yard.
5. It is contended that after coming to know regarding the aforesaid judgement, the petitioner filed Land Reference Case No. of 2017 before respondent No.3 as per provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for re-determination of his compensation on the basis of the judgement and order dated 12.03.2016 passed in L.A.R. No.6 of 2002 (Fateh Mohammad Vs. State of U.P.), but till date no decision has been taken. In the circumstances, a prayer is made in the present writ petition to issue a Mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to decide the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 expeditiously.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself since no useful purpose would be served keeping this petition pending before this Court.
7. Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 is quoted below:-
28A. 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 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, required 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.
8. The object of Section 28-A of the Act is certainly confer a right to make reference by persons who might not have made a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 to get the benefit of enhanced compensation which the other similarly situated persons got. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pradeep Kumari, AIR 1995 SC 2259 observed as follows:-
Section 28-A is, therefore, in the nature of a beneficient provision intended to remove inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people who are not able to take advantage of right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. In relation to beneficient legislation, the law is well-settled that while construing the provisions of such a legislation the court should adopt a construction which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it. The provisions of Section 28- A should, therefore, be construed keeping in view the object underlying the said provision.
9. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the land of the petitioners as well as Fateh Mohammad and others was acquired by the State Government by way of notification issued in the year 1983. Aggrieved against the quantum of compensation, Fateh Mohammad and others filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 in which amount of compensation was enhanced. After the aforesaid order, an application for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and the same is pending since 2016 before respondent No.3.
10. In spite of the fact that considerable time has already lapsed, no decision has been taken by the respondent No.3 on the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28(A)(i) of the Act, 1894.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, liberty is given to the petitioner to submit a representation before respondent No.3 annexing the copy of the order dated 12.3.2016 passed in L.A.R. No.6 of 2002 (Fateh Mohammad Vs. State of U.P. and others) along certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. If such representation is filed, a mandamus is issued to respondent No.3 to pass final order in Land Reference Case No. of 2017 (Abdul Hakim and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) submitted by the petitioner under Section 28(A) of the Act, 1894 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months thereafter.
12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the respondent No.3 will be free to pass appropriate order independently in accordance with law.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 saqlain