Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24235 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ajit Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Agrawal,Rishabh Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Per: Hon’ble Prakash Padia J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a mandamus directing the respondent No.2/3 namely Collector Agra/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra to decide the application filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1894”) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months.
3. The facts, in brief, as contained in the writ petition are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the State Government on 30.01.1989 followed by the notification dated 5.9.1989 under Section 6 of the Act. The aforesaid notifications were issued for acquisition of land for the purpose of Sikandra Avasiya Yojna Agra to be developed by the Agra Development Authority. The award was declared on 8.11.1991. Aggrieved against the compensation declared in award, one Jagan Singh and certain land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said reference was registered as Land Acquisition Case (hereinafter referred to as L.A.C.) No.95 of 2008 (Jagan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). The L.A.C. was finally decided on 22.08.2017 in favour of the claimant. The amount of the compensation determined by the Collector was accordingly enhanced. After the aforesaid judgement was delivered, all the petitioners preferred an application before respondent Nos.2/3 under Section 28-A of the Act.
4. It is contended that the petitioners are “Persons Interested” in the award determined by the Collector which was subsequently enahced. It is further contended that under Section 28-A(2) of the Act, the Collector is under an obligation to conduct an inquiry upon receipt of the application moved under Section 28 of the Act. The Collector was also required to give notice to all the persons interested. Since, no decision was taken on the application submitted by the petitioners, the petitioners moved an application by way of reminder to the respondent Nos.2/3 dated 9.3.2018, copy of which is appended as Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition. It is further contended that till date no decision has been taken by the respondent Nos.2/3 in spite of the fact that more than 18 months have already been lapsed. In the circumstances, a prayer is made in the present writ petition to direct the respondent No.2/3 to decide the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 expeditiously.
5. 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.
6. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A, before respondent Nos.2/3, is a statutory application and the respondent Nos.2/3 are duty bound to decide the same expeditiously.
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 28 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 Jagan Singh and other land owners were acquired by the State Government by way of notification issued in the year 1989. Aggrieved against the quantum of compensation, Jagan Singh and other land owners 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 petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 and the same is pending since 2017 before respondent No2/.3.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, liberty is given to the petitioner to submit a fresh application before respondent No.2/3 annexing the copy of the order dated 22.08.2017 passed in L.A.R. No.95 of 2008 (Sri Jagan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) along certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. If such an application is filed, a mandamus is issued to respondent No.3 to pass final order on the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28(A)(i) of the Act, 1894 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months thereafter.
11. 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.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 saqlain