CWP No.13512 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.13512 of 2009
Date of decision: 1.9.2009
Ram Singh and another
....Petitioners
vs.
Union Territory, Chandigarh.
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
---
Present: Ms.Akta Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners.
J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral)
The process of acquiring land was initiated by the respondents
through a notification dated 10.1.1992. The aforesaid notification was
issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”). The determination to acquire the petitioners’ land
was finalised with the issuance of a declaration under section 6 of the Act,
whereupon the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award dated
9.11.1992. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners accepted the
compensation on account of the acquired land in terms of the award of the
Land Acquisition Collector dated 9.11.1992.
Others whose land was also acquired in furtherance of the
notifications referred to hereinabove, sought enhancement of compensation.
It is therefore, that applications seeking enhancement of compensation were
referred to the Reference Court under section 18 of the Act. The Reference
Court enhanced the compensation earlier determined by the Land
Acquisition Collector (through his award dated 9.11.1992) by its order
dated 11.3.2002. Since compensation awarded by the Reference Court was
higher than the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector,
CWP No.13512 of 2009 2
the petitioners moved an application under section 28-A of the Act seeking
enhancement of compensation. The instant application was filed on
6.5.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioners acknowledges, that the request
of enhancement of compensation made at the hands of the petitioners was
acceded to, and that the petitioners have already received compensation at
the same rate, as was determined by the Reference Court vide order dated
11.3.2002.
The petitioners then moved an application dated 4.6.2003
(Annexure P2) seeking still further compensation. It is the vehement
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the compensation
determined by the Reference Court vide its order dated 11.3.2002 was
insufficient, and as such the petitioners had claimed the same under protest.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in terms
of the mandate of section 28-A (3) of the Act, it is open to a person who
does not accept the award under sub section (2) of section 28-A of the Act,
to claim a still further enhancement.
We have considered the solitary contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners. It is not possible for us to accept the
interpretation placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on section
28-A of the Act, specially sub section (3) thereof, to the effect that, a
landowner can, under the mandate of section 28-A, claim compensation
higher than the one awarded by the Reference Court in exercise of
jurisdiction vested in the Reference Court under section 18 of the Act.
Section 28-A of the Act was introduced only with the aim and object to
allow enhancement of compensation equivalent to the compensation
awarded by the Reference Court, to others whose land was acquired under
CWP No.13512 of 2009 3
the same notification. Since it is not disputed by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners are already in receipt of compensation
determined by the Reference Court in its order dated 11.3.2002, we are
satisfied that the claim made by the petitioners to seek any further
enhancement is totally unjustified.
In view of the above we find no merit in this petition and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
( J.S.Khehar)
Judge
(S.D.Anand)
Judge
September 1, 2009
rk