Randhir Kaur v. State Of Haryana And Others
2
!
"#$ %&
( #$
) *+," - $$$
) , ( ) .
$ *+,
"
/! $) % ) $ (
0" ,- !".!
( * + , ""
0/! ) $ % ) ( 4 .! " 0 5$ " 0 $"6) $ * ( .
)
* $ !
'.* ) $8 $ ' % 4 !& ( 9 : #$
) $ )
3 . ) . , (
. 7 $
$
$
$
) , ( . )
) $ $ ( ,$-
4 $ ) ) & ( ) ! &
( $,$- $ 7
! "
# $%$& "$# ' '
" # ()( 4" 3 ;!
"15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the First Appeal which was allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2nd May 2016 was in respect of the land which was covered by the same notification under which notification the appellants' land is also covered. It is also not in dispute that the amount awarded by the High Court in the said First Appeal is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the case of the land of the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the appellants had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. It is also not in dispute that the application made by the appellants under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act to the Collector was within a period of three months
4 from the date of the judgment and order of the High Court. 16.
From the perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari (supra), it is clear that the limitation for moving the application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act will begin to run only from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of the compensation is sought. The appellants are seeking redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment and order of the High Court in First Appeal No. 429 of 2023 dated 2nd May 2016. It is not disputed that the application of the appellants under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act is within a period of three months from 2nd May 2016."
. &
*<= > ? ( +
,
! - .
/ /0/
12 3 (%(4")# ' '
" # 567 . )
$ !
) 3( " 0 @ $ 4.
0 ( 7 ) <.=
&
5 )
)
) , ( . ) 1
) , ( ) . ) )
' ( 1 3(
$ ' $ 1 )) ) 3 ( 8
! - . 9
- '
(%$& "#54$ ) ) ( ) & (
) 4.
$
)) $ " 7 $ $ * %) ) ) * <= * !
,$- $ * $ ) $
lis ' 5
6 0
) , ( .
) 4 !& (
. 0 $
7
) & (
#$
,$ - $ ) , ( 5 ( 5$ 0" ,- 4". ) * )+, ""
0/! ) $
0
& ( 9 : #$ /#$
) ,$- ( ) 0" ) & ( #$
5 $
5 ( ,$-
)* Bharat Singh vs State of Maharashtra 2018 (11) SCC 92, $"!0 3 ;!
A". In the case of the appellants, when their Section 28A application was decided, based on awards in LAR Nos. 123 and
7 129 of 1983, the very same awards were pending in appeal before the High Court. However, the Collector proceeded to consider their application and decided the same on 25.10.2000. Thereafter, fresh application under Section 28A was filed on 27.05.2009 based on the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009. It was this application that was held to be not maintainable, being a second application.
16. Though there is no quarrel with the principle that only a single application is maintainable, in the instant case, unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals on the relied on awards were pending when the Section 28A application was decided. That is the special and distinctive factual position in the instant case. It must also be kept in mind that Section 28A is a beneficial provision.
17. The Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 based on the awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was decided on 25.10.2000 when the appeals therefrom were pending. The Collector ought to have kept the application pending till the appeals were decided on 23.03.2009. On principle, the 2
: 3 in the impugned judgment that there cannot be successive applications under Section 28A in view of Pradeep Kumari (supra). But that is not the point arising for consideration here. No doubt, the second application dated 27.05.2009 for refixation in light of the appellate court judgment is not maintainable. However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the application when the matter was pending in appeal, in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the application dated 31.12.1992 should be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows. The Land Acquisition Collector is directed to consider afresh the Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 and pass orders in the light of the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009 in First Appeal Nos.569 and 570 of 1997 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. For enabling
8 the Collector to pass orders as above, the order dated 25.10.2000 is set aside. However, the amounts already paid are to be duly adjusted.
B & ( #$ 5
) ) $ ) 5 $ ) & (
? $
5 '
' $
$
* $ ) &$ ) ,$ - ) ( $
5 $ $
& ( #$ )' $
( 0" )
4 ) ! ,$ -
) ) ,$-
% ) & (
#$ 0" %
9
) .
) ) 3 ( 2* <= ) ' '
$) $ $
-
(
$
!
)* ) <.=
@
)5 4 !
& ( $
) 5 )
<.=
) $) )) ( 0 ( 7 ) ) $ . 0
& ( 9 : #$
% )
( 4 .! " 0 5$ " 0%
) )
10 4 ,* $% 4 /)
* C $
0 "
*
8* $/ ;
D/4 8 ;
D/4