@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N.V. Ramana, J.@mdashAggrieved by the endorsement dated 28.4.2008 of respondent No. 2, namely the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, APIIC, Kakinada, East Godavari District, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), claiming compensation as per the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2002, passed by this Court in AS Nos. 607 and 616 of 2000, holding that it is barred by limitation. An extent of Acs. 467.00 in Thammavaram and Vakalapudi Villages, including the land of the petitioners, was acquired by respondent No. 2 based on the requisition of M/s. Essar Gujarat Limited, Hyderabad, for establishing sponge iron plant, and award dated 15.4.1991, was passed in Award No. 2 of 1991, was passed fixing compensation of Rs. 63,000/- for plain land and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for land covered by pits, and while so as M/s. Essar Gujarat Limited, Hyderabad, failed to establish the sponge plant, the land was transferred to APIIC. Not satisfied with the compensation fixed and awarded, some of the land owners, sought reference u/s 18 of the Act, and the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in OP No. 6 of 1992, vide judgment dated 30.9.1999, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 63,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 97,650/- per acre. Assailing the said judgment and decree, some of the claimants filed appeals in AS No. 607 of 2000 and batch, while the respondents filed cross-objections. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment and decree dated 13.8.2002 allowed the appeals partly enhancing the compensation, awarded by the reference Court from Rs. 97,650/- to Rs. 1,69.400/- and dismissed the cross-objections. The SLP (Civil) Nos. 4196 to 4201 of 2003, filed by the respondents, was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, by orders dated 6.5.2003.
2. Pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and during the pendency of the SLP filed by the respondents against the said judgment, the petitioners, who did not seek reference of the matter to the civil Court and who did not file any appeal before this Court, filed petition before respondent No. 2 u/s 28A of the Act, for payment of compensation, as awarded by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30.9.1999 in AS No. 607 of 2000 and Batch. However, respondent No. 2 vide award dated 31.1.2007 enhanced the compensation in the case of the petitioners as awarded by the reference Court, but not as awarded by Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners, therefore, again filed petitions u/s 28A of the Act, to pay compensation as awarded by the Division Bench of this Court, in AS Nos. 607 of 2000 and batch, dated 30.9.1999. But, respondent No. 2 vide endorsement dated 28.4.2008, rejected the petition of the petitioners on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioners, as stated above, filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land of the petitioners along with other land owners was acquired by the respondents ad even award was passed. Even though the petitioners did not seek reference of the matter to the civil Court and filed further appeal for enhancement of compensation, but having regard to the fact that other claimants, who sought reference of the matter to the civil Court and also filed appeal, were granted enhanced compensation for the acquisition of their lands, he submits that having regard to the provisions of Section 28A of the Act, the petitioners also are entitled to be paid the enhanced compensation as awarded in appeal by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of other land owners, and there can be no limitation for seeking enhanced compensation, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in
4. The respondents have not filed counter. However, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of the respondents, fairly admitted that having regard to the provisions of Section 28A of the Act, the compensation payable to the applicants is the same which is finally payable to those claimants who sought reference u/s 18 of the Act, but submitted that having regard to the provisions of Section 28-A(3) of the Act, the petitioners have to file applications before the civil Court.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents.
6. The land of the petitioners along with others was acquired by the Government, and the Land Acquisition Officer, also passed award in Award No. 2/ 1991, fixing the value of the acquired land per acre at Rs. 63,000/- (for plain land) and Rs. 60,000/- (for land covered by pits). Aggrieved thereby, some of the land owners, sought reference of the matter u/s 18 of the Act, to the civil Court, and on reference, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in OP No. 6 of 1992, vide judgment dated 30.9.1999, enhanced the compensation per acre from Rs. 63,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 97,650/-. Again the claimants, not satisfied with the enhanced compensation, filed appeals in AS Nos. 607 of 2000 and batch, while the Government filed cross-objections. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 13.8.2002, party allowed the appeals and rejected the cross-objections, enhancing the compensation per acre form Rs. 97,650/- to Rs. 1,69,400/-. The SLP (Civil) Nos. 4196 to 4201 of 2003, filed by the respondents, was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, by orders dated 6.5.2003. While so, the petitioners herein, who did not seek reference of the matter to the civil Court, submitted applications before respondent No. 2, praying to pay them compensation for the acquired land, as enhanced by the Division Bench of this Court in appeal, but respondent No. 2 instead of awarding compensation, as enhanced by the Division Bench of this Court, awarded compensation as awarded by the reference Court. Therefore, the petitioners again filed applications u/s 28A of the Act, praying to grant compensation as awarded by a Division Bench of this Court, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP However, respondent No. 2 vide endorsement dated 28.4.2008 impugned in the writ petition rejected the applications of the petitioners on the ground that they are time barred.
7. Whether respondent No. 2 was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners filed u/s 28A of the Act, for paying the enhanced compensation, as enhanced by the Division Bench of this Court, in the appeals filed by other land owners, covered by the award, on the ground that it is barred by Imitation, may be considered. The law is well settled, as admitted to by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, that u/s 28A of the Act, the compensation payable to the applicants is the same which is finally payable to those claimants who sought reference u/s 18 of the Act. Therefore, the question of any limitation, for claiming compensation, would not arise. In Union of India v. Munshi Ram (supra), the apex Court, having considered the question as to what would be the compensation payable to the land owners, who did not seek reference and further appeal, held as under:
We are of the view that the Union of India is right in its submission that the amount payable u/s 28A of the Act is the amount which is finally payable by way of compensation to the owners of the land who challenged the award of the Collector and claimed reference u/s 18 of the Act. The said provision seeks to confer the benefits of enhanced compensation even on those owners who did not seek a reference u/s 18. It cannot be that those who secure a certain benefit by reason of others getting such benefit should retain that benefit even though the others on the basis of whose claim compensation was enhanced are deprived of the enhanced compensation to an extent. This would be rather inequitable and unfair. Moreover, even if it be that the compensation payable to claimants who have applied u/s 28A of the Act, is the enhanced compensation decreed by the reference Court, we must understand the decree to mean the decree of the reference Court as modified in appeal by higher Courts. Otherwise, an incongruous position may emerge that a person who did not challenge the award of the Collector and did not claim a reference u/s 18 of the Act would get a higher compensation than the one who challenged the award of the Collector and claimed a reference, but in whose case a higher compensation determined by the reference Court was subsequently reduced by the superior Court. There can be no dispute that those claiming higher compensation and claiming reference u/s 18 of the Act are bound by the decree as modified by the superior Court in appeal. The principle of restitution must apply to them. For the same reason, the same consequences must visit others who have been given benefit of enhanced compensation pursuant to the decree passed in reference proceeding on the application of others.
8. Thus, from the above legal position, it is clear that the compensation payable to the land owners, who did not seek reference, is the compensation that is ultimately paid to the land owners, who sought reference of the matter u/s 18 of the Act, and as modified in further appeals.
9. Even though as per the provisions of Section 28-A(3) of the Act, the petitioners have to approach the civil Court, for grant of enhanced compensation, as awarded by a Division Bench of this Court in the appeals preferred by other land owners, but in view of the admitted case of the respondents, and considering the fact that acquisition of the land in question, took place way back in the year 1991, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be in the interest of justice to relegate the petitioners to approach the civil Court at this distance of time. Hence, for that reason, I deem it appropriate to quash the impugned endorsement of respondent No. 2, and accordingly do so, and direct respondent No. 2 to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioners as awarded by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of other land owners covered by the same award and as confirmed by the apex Court in SLP Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
