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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.