JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated November 6, 1989 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Nawanshahar whereby the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) moved by the petitioner for re-determination of compensation of the acquired land was dismissed.
2. Some land of the petitioner was acquired by the State of Punjab under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in this behalf on May 28, 1981. The Collector gave his award. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the District Judge determined the market value of the land at Rs. 1000/- per marla. On further appeal, the market value was enhanced by this Court by judgment dated March 12, 1987.
3. The petitioner herein thereafter filed an application under Section 28A of the Act on October 3, 1988 before the Collector for re-determination of compensation on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by this Court by judgment dated March 12, 1987. This application, as stated earlier, was dismissed on November 6, 1989, primarily, on the ground that the petitioner did not approach the Collector within three months from the date of order of the High Court dated March 12, 1987. While dismissing the application, the Collector also noticed that the petitioner had admitted that he did seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act and that if the petitioner failed to include same portion of the land in the reference application, it was not the fault of the Court.
4. Section 28A of the Act was inserted by Act No. 68 of 1984 on September 24, 1984, which reads as under : –
“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 under Section 18.”
This Section had been the subject matter of interpretation in Mewa Ram (deceased by L. Rs.) and Ors. v. State of Haryana, A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 45 wherein it was clearly held that in order to take benefit of the provisions of Section 28A of the Act, the forum is the Collector and the right is restricted to the persons who had not applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act and the application for re-determining the amount of compensation awarded by the Court has to be made within three months from the date of the award. But in the present case, as noticed above, application under Section 28A of the Act was filed by the applicant on October, 1988 whereas the judgment of this Court enhancing the amount of compensation was pronounced on March 12, 1987. It is, therefore, apparent that the application under Section 28A of the Act for re-determining the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of this Court was made after a lapse of more than one and a half year and was, on the face of it, barred by time. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how the application under Section 28A was within time. The learned Collector, in my view, was absolutely right in rejecting the petitioner’s application being barred by time and no fault can be found with the conclusion arrived at by him.
5. Mr. Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that Letters Patent Appeal at the instance of the State of Punjab against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated March 12, 1987 is still pending final disposal in this Court and, therefore, the application under Section 28A of the Act already filed by the petitioner would be within time. I do not find any merit in this contention. If the petitioner is entitled to make another application under Section 28A of the Act on the basis of the judgment that may be rendered by this Court it shall be open to the Collector to decide the same in accordance with law.
6. In view of the above discussion, this revision petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.