HUKAM CHAND AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.

                       HUKAM CHAND AND ORS. ETC.                                        A
                                            v.
•                   STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.

                                    APRIL 2, 1996

                IK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .IJ.i                                 B

          Land Acquisitio11 Act, 11!94:

           Ss. 28-A a11d 54-Acquisitioll of la11d-Award made by La11d Acquisi-
    tio11 Ojficer--Compe11sation e11ha11ced by reference court-After e11ha11ccme11t     C
    of award u11der s. 26 111atter 11ot take11 in appeal to High Court u/s. 54-Some
    other clabnants under the san1e notification Jvho took the nzatter to High
    Cowt awarded higher compensatio11-La11d ow11cr fili11g application u/s. 28A
    after two yea1:\· for ftuther enlzance1nent of co11111e11sation-Autholities under
    the Act as also the High Cowt decli11ing to grant relief-Held, remedy 11/s.
    28A(/) is available 011ly whe11 compensation was e11hanced u/s. 26 and not D
    when it was enhanced u/s. 54.

          Constitution of India, 1950 :

          Altic/e 14--Land owner accepting ton111ensation under award u/s. 26
    of La11d Acquisition Act and not taki11g matter to High Cowt 11/s. 54-Later E
    son1e other clain1ants having taken niatter to High ColtJt were awarded higher
    compensation-Application of land owner filed u/s. 28A rejected-Held, there
    is no violation ofA1tic/e 14.

          Scheduled Castes CooperatiFe Land ()wning Society Ltd. Blullinda v.           F
    U11io11 of !11dia, (1991] I SCC 174 and Babu Ram & 01,-. v. State of UP. &
    Anr., [1995] 2 SCC 689, relied on.

          KS. Pmipooman v. State of Kera/a, [1995] I SCC 367, followed.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7118 of G
    1996 Etc.

         From the .Judgment and Order dated 21.9. 1993 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 2659 of 1993 .

          .l.D. Jain for the Appellants.                                                H
                                           1087
    1088                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (1996] 3 S.C.R.

A          Ms. Rcnu George and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           Leave granted.

B          Notific"tion under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
    (for short, the 'Act') was published on 24.3.1971. The Collector under
    Section 11 passed his award on July 10, 1971. Thereon, the appellant along
    with others sought and had reference to the Additional District .I udge
    under Section 18. After further enhancement of the award under Section
C   26, the appellants had not carried the matter in appeal to the High Court
    under Section 54. Some other claimants filed RFA No. 1326178 wherein
    the High Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 135 per sq. yd.
    Subsequently, after two years, the appellant had filed application under
    Section 28A to the Land Acquisition Officer who in his award in L.C. case
    No. 51/91 by order dated May 10, 1993 dismissed the application. On
D   revision filed by tbe appellants in C.R. No. 2659/93, the High Court of
    Punjab & Haryana by order dated September 21, 1993 dismissed the
    petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.

           The only question is: whether the Land Acquisition Officer was right
E in refusing to award the compensation to the appellants @ Rs. 135 per sq.         +
    yd. pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in RFA No. 1326/79.
    Section 28-A(l) of the Act reads thus :

             "Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the
             ctpplicant any an1ount of compensation in excess of the amount
F            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 net made an applica-
             tion to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to
             the Collector within three months from the date of the award of
G            the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to
             them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of com-
             pensation awarded by the Court :

             Provided that in computing the period of three months within
H            which an application to the Collector shall be made under this
                           HUKAM CHANDv. STATE                            1089

             sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the A
             time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded."

            A reading thereof clearly indicates that aftfr making award under
     Section 11 by the Collector, if the claimant had not made a written
     application under Section 18 within limitation, but one of the claimants B
     arising out of the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the
     Act, aggrieved against the award made on application and hold the refer-
     ence under Section 18 and when the civil Court has enhanced the compen-
    sation, persons who did not make the applications under Section 18 and
     received the compensation under Section 31 without protest, Section 28-
    A(l) gives him right to make a written application under Section 28-A(l)
                                                                                 c
    within three months from the date of the award made by the reference
     Court. Under its proviso, the time taken to obtain its certified copy from
     the date of making the application to the date of supplying the award shall
    be excluded. In other words, the aggrieved persons who had received the
     compensation without protest but did not avail of the remedy of reference D
     under Section 18, if one of the claimants arising from the same notification
    published under Section 4(1) of the Act, had the benefit of enhanced
     compensation - from the reference Court, the non-applicant has been
     empowered under Section 28-A(l) to avail the remedy under Section 28-A
    by an application made within three months from the date of the award of E
    the reference Court to seek enhanced compensation. In this case, admit-
    tedly, the appellants have availed the remedy of reference under Section
    18 and had the compensation enhanced. Thereafter, they did not pursue
    appellate remedy under Section 54 to the High Court for further enhanced
    compensation but some of the claimants pursued the appellate remedy and
                                                                                  F
    had further enhanced the compensation at Rs. 135 per sq. yd. Having not
    availed of the remedy under Section 54, the appellants are not entitled to
    make an application under Section 28-A(l) to seek the same benefit of the
    enhanced compensation. The remedy under Section 28-A(l) is available to
    only when the compensation was enhanced under Section 26 award and
    judgment in part III of the Act and the same is not available when it was G
    enhanced under Section 54 of the Act. This Court in Scheduled Castes
    Cooperative La11d Ow11ing Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India, [1991]
    1 sec 174 had held that the claimants who availed the remedy under
1   Section 18 are not entitled to additional amount under Section 28-A when
    the High Court enhanced the compensation. Similar view was also ex- H
    pressed in Babu Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1995J 2 SCC 689. The
    1090                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    !1996] 3 S.C.R.

A   appellants are, therefore, not entitled to make the applications under
    Section 28-A further enhancement. The Land Acquisition Officer and the
    High Court have rightly refused to grant the relief of enhanced compensa-
    tion on par with other claimants. The further contention that the appellants
                                                                                    ..
    arc inviduously discriminated to the payment of same con1pcnsation on par
B   with others violating the equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the
    Constitution is no longer res integra. This was concluded against the ag-
    grieved persons by majority judgment of this Court in KS. Paripooman v.
    State of Kera/a, [1995] l SCC 367 and Babu Ram's case (supra).

           The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

    R.P.                                                      Appeals dismissed.