9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition Collector, Beas Dam Project, Talwara. The respondents in these petitions did not seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act but other persons whose lands were acquired under the said notifications sought a reference. Most of these references were disposed of by the Court prior to September 24, 1984 but in some references the award by the Court was made after the enactment of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act'] which came into force on September 24, 1984. By the Amendment Act Section 28-A was introduced in the Act. According to the petitioners the earliest award by the Court after the coming into force of the Amendment Act was made on December 27, 1984. Awards were, however, made by the Court in pending references subsequent to December 27, 1984 also. One such award was made on February 21, 1987. Smt. Pradeep Kumari, respondent No. 1. filed an application under Section 28-A for claiming the benefit of the said award dated February 21, 1987. On the said application the Collector made an order dated March 14, 1988 awarding additional amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court dated February 21, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion which is. the subject matter of the award of the court and in that event the application should be moved within the period of three months from the date of the making of the award. The High Court, however held that the said right has to be exercised only once and that once the right has been exercised by a person by applying to the Collector for re- determination, no application can be made thereafter. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed by the High Court on the view that respondent No. 2 could invoke the benefit of Section 28-A on the basis of the award made by the District Judge on November 10,1986 in another land Reference No. 15 of 1984. Civil Appeal nos. 2320-21 of 1991 filed by the petitioners against the said judgment of the High Court were dismissed by this Court by order dated October 8, 1991 whereby it has been held that the High Court was right in extending the benefit of enhanced compensation as well as the enhanced rate of interest and solatium to the respondents. The first contention urged by Shri N.N. Goswamy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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 Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18. The object underlying the enactment of these provisions, as indicated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, was:- (ix) Considering that the right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act is not usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and is usually exercised by the comparatively affluent landowners and that this causes considerable inequality in the payment of compensation for the same or similar quality of land to different interested parties, it is proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek re-de termination of compensation, once any one of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court under Section 18 of the Act. In Babua Ram (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... providing an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered by the same notification to seek re-determination once any of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court under Section 18 of the Act. Section 28-A is, therefore, in the nature of a beneficient provision intended to remove inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people who are not able to take advantage of right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. In relation to beneficient legislation, the law is well-settled that while construing the provisions of such a legislation the court should adopt a construction which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it. The provisions of Section 28-A should, therefore, be construed keeping in view the object underlying the said provision. A perusal of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 28-A of the Act would show that after an award is made under Part III whereby the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d made by the court would be denied to the persons invoking Section 28-A and the benefit of the said provision would be confined to re-determination of compensation on the basis of lesser amount of compensation awarded under the first award that is made after the coming into force of Section 28-A. There is nothing in the wordings of Section 28- A to indicate that the legislature intended to confer such a limited benefit under Section 28-A. Similarly, there may be a situation, as in the present case, where the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act covers lands falling in different villages and a number of references at the instance of persons having lands in different villages were pending in the court on the date of coming into force of Section 28-A and awards in those references are made by the court on different dates. A person who is entitled to apply under Section 28-A belonging to a particular village may come to know of the first award that is made by the court after the coming into force of Section 28-A in a reference at the instance of a person belonging to another village, after the expiry of the period of three months from the date of the said award but he may come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is sought, the principle that once the limitation begins to run, it runs in its full course until its running is interdicted by an order of the court can have no application because the limitation for moving the application under Section 28-A will begin to run only from the date of the award on the basis of which re-determination of compensation is sought. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view expressed in Babua Ram (supra) and Karnail Singh (supra) that application under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation can only be made on the basis of the first award that is made after the coming into force of Section 28-A. In our opinion, the benefit of re-determination of amount of compensation under Section 28-A can be availed of on the basis of any one of the awards that has been made by the court after the coming into force of Section 28-A provided the applicant seeking such benefit makes the application under Section 28-A within the prescribed period of three months from the making of the award on the basis of which re-determination is sought, The first contention urged by Shri Goswamy in support of the Review Petitions is, therefore, rejected. Shri Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
