9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of applications u/s 28-A for re-determination of compensation. 2. Interpretation of the term "aggrieved persons" u/s 28-A. 3. Applicability of Section 28-A to awards made before and after the Amendment Act. 4. Limitation period for applications u/s 28-A. 5. Rights of beneficiaries to seek reference u/s 28-A(3). Summary: 1. Validity of Applications u/s 28-A for Re-determination of Compensation: The appellants moved the Special Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) u/s 28-A for re-determination of compensation at par with another claimant, Krishna Kumar, whose compensation was enhanced by the Addl. District Judge. The L.A.O. rejected their applications on grounds that they were not "aggrieved persons" and that the decree in favor of Krishna Kumar was pending appeal. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal. 2. Interpretation of the Term "Aggrieved Persons" u/s 28-A: The Court held that "persons aggrieved" u/s 28-A include those who received compensation without protest due to ignorance, poverty, or illiteracy and did not seek a reference u/s 18. This provision aims to benefit such individuals by allowing them to seek re-determination of compensation based on a court award to another claimant under the same notification. The Court emphasized that this interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to provide relief to poor and inarticulate landowners. 3. Applicability of Section 28-A to Awards Made Before and After the Amendment Act: Section 28-A applies prospectively from the date the Amendment Act came into force (September 24, 1984). It does not apply to awards made under Section 26 before this date. However, if a reference under Section 18 was pending on September 24, 1984, and the court enhanced the compensation after this date, the affected persons could seek re-determination u/s 28-A. 4. Limitation Period for Applications u/s 28-A: The limitation period for applications u/s 28-A is three months from the date of the court award under Section 26. The time taken to obtain a certified copy of the award is excluded from this period. The Court clarified that successive awards do not provide fresh causes of action; the limitation begins from the earliest award. 5. Rights of Beneficiaries to Seek Reference u/s 28-A(3): The Court held that beneficiaries (e.g., local authorities or companies for whom the land is acquired) are not entitled to seek a reference u/s 28-A(3) as they are bound by the Collector's award. However, they can participate in the inquiry and adduce evidence. If dissatisfied with the award u/s 28-A(2), their remedy lies in challenging it through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Conclusion: The Court remitted the matters to the respective Collectors/L.A.O.s to reconsider the applications u/s 28-A in light of the guidelines provided, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and addressing the concerns of aggrieved persons. The appeals were allowed with specific directions for further proceedings.
|
