JUDGMENT
N.C. Jain, J.
1. This judgment of mine would dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1930 to 1961 of 1991, as question of law is similar in all the cases.
2. The Government of Haryana vide its notification No. 8097/1L/II/SYL dated 23.06.1976, published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated 06.07.1976, sought to acquire a lot of land, situate in village Kirmach Tehsil and District Karnal, for constructing SYL Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 23.11.1976, assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8720/- per acre. Certain land owners sought references under Section 18 of the Land – Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide his award dated 05.01.1981, assesed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 27300/- per acre. These land owners who sought the o references under Section 18 of the Act, feeling aggrieved against the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, filed Regular First Appeals in this court. This court while deciding Regular First Appeal No. 700 of 1981 decided on 23.07.1986, determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 31,000/- per acre.
3. On the basis of the award rendered by this Court, the petitioners whose lands were also acquired by virtue of the same notification filed various applications under Section 28A of the Act for re-determination of the market value of their acquired land, on the ground that they are also entitled to the grant of same compensation as their land was also acquired by the same notification. The petitioners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 31,000/- per acre which was granted by this court. The matter was taken up by the Collector and he vide his order under challenge before me, determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 27,300/- per acre i.e. the rate given by the Additional District Judge. The petitioners feeling aggrieved against the order of the Collector have filed the afore-mentioned revision-petitions.
4. The short question which arises for determination in these matters is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the grant of compensation at the same rates which were allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, or they are entitled to the grant of market value at the rates which were allowed by this court.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to have their land evaluated at the same rate which was given to other claimants who approached this court. The true and correct interpretation of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in my considered view would be that other land owners who did not seek any reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act would, on re-determination, be entitled to the same rates which other land owners have got either from the court, of District Judge or from the High Court; or from the Supreme Court. The use of the words in Section 28A “award of the Court” does not and cannot possibly mean the award of the court of the District Judge.” The award of the court would be that award which is final, whether finality is attained at the stage of District Judge or High Court or Supreme Court. The award of the District Judge merges into the award of the High Court. If the view of the Collector is to be upheld, it would create an anomalous position. In a particular case, the amount awarded by the District Judge may be reduced by the High Court. Can in such a situation be contended by the claimants that they are entitled to the compensation awarded by the District Judge which is a higher one and not the compensation which is awarded by this court. The answer would certainly be in the negative.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petitions are allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,300/- per acre. They would also be entitled to the grant of statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, as was done by this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 700 of 1981, decided on 23.07.1986. The parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.