Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, with the following prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No.3, Special Land Acquisition Officer (Joint Organization), Saharanpur District Saharanpur to decide the application for claim/compensation dated 2.8.2018 of the petitioner under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 pending before Special Land Acquisition Officer (Joint Organization), Saharanpur District Saharanpur expeditiously within stipulated period to be fixed by this Hon'ble court".
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 15.4.1989, the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad acquired the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra Nos. 1682, 1683 and 1687 total area 30-2-12-5, 0-6-0, 2-18-15). The compensation was awarded and received by the petitioner in the month of June 2000. It is stated that some of the farmers filed reference before the District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar against the award and by the order dated 5.3.1999, the compensation amount were enhanced by the court. The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad filed appeals against the order dated 5.3.1999 passed by the reference Court before this Court with leading appeal being First Appeal No. 565 of 1999. In the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner filed an application for impleadment which was allowed. On 8.9.2009, the appeal filed by the respondent- authority was dismissed. The Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 3.4.2012. It is alleged that in the month of July 2012, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894') but till date the application has not been decided. Further, the representations made by the petitioner also yielded no result and hence this writ petition has been filed.
Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 reads as follows:
"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, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of section 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18".
In view whereof, the petitioner was required, in case he was aggrieved by the award of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, to file a written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the reference court, that amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of amount of compensation awarded by the Court. Admittedly, reference was decided by the District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar on 5.3.1999. Though in paragraph No. 12 of the petition, it has been mentioned that in the month of July 2012, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 but the same has not been enclosed. Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition is actually an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 which appears to have been filed on 3.8.2018. In any view of the matter, even if it is assumed that the application on behalf of the petitioner was filed in July 2012, it is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 for filing of application for re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner. Thus, the relief as claimed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted.
This writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
No costs.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021 sfa/ (Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J)