Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodrigueses and Anr. Etc. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr.

Sri Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published on 3.10.1969 and the award under Section F 11 was made in the case of his clients on August 2, 1972 determining compensation under Section 23(1) at Rs. 1.25 per sq. mt. for plot No. 23 admeasuring 24721 sq. mts. Subsequently, successive awards for other lands acquired under the same notification were made, on June 4, 1985 at Rs. 5 per sq. mt., on October 14, 1985 at Rs. 9 per sq. mt. and another judgment and decree on August 31, 1987 by the High Court in Appeal G No.11/86 uniformly fixing the compensation at Rs. 5 per sq. mt. Yet another reference under Section 18 was decided on July 27, 1989 by the Reference Court at Rs. 5 per sq. mt. Though he filed the application on 13.5.1987, in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumali & Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 736, any one of the awards or each successive H award including the judgment and decree of the High Court would give ... - JOSE ANrONIO CRUZ DOS R RODRIGUESES v. LAND ACQN. COLLECTOR 175 right and cause of action to the petitioner-claimant to make application A under Section 28-A. So, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay. The views of the Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court wrong in law. Section 28-A says that where in an award under this part, the Court allowed the application under Section 18 and awarded higher compensa­ tion, notwithstanding that the claimant had not made an application under Section 18, he can make an application "within three months from the date of the award of the court" (emphasis supplied) requiring that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. The proviso prescribes the mode of computation of period of three months which says that : "the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded." The contention of the learned counsel is that any one of the succes­ sive awards including the Judgment and decree of the High Court would give right and cause of action to the Petitioner to make an application under Section 28-A. Therefore, there is no bar of limitation. A Bench of two Judges of this Court in Babua Ram v. State of U.P., (1995] 2 SCC 689, has held that the period of limitation beings to run when the award on a reference under Section 18 was first made by the Reference Court and the limitation of three months requires to be computed from the date of the first award and successive awards do not save the limitation if it has already expired by efflux of time. The same view was reiterated in another judg­ ment in Union of India v. Kamai! Singh, [1995] 2 SCC 728. This view was subsequently overruled by a Bench of three judges. In view of the contention raised by Shri Mehta, the following ques­ tions are required to be considered : 1. Whether the award of the Court, i.e., Civil Court made under Section 26 on reference under Section 18 would also include judgment and decree of the Appellate Court under Section 54?* Union of India V. Raghubir Singh, (1989] 2 sec 754; v. Klishnamu11i & Ors. v. State of Orissa, (1995] 1 SCR 488 and C.A. No. 3521/95 State of Punjab v. Raghubir Singh & Ors., [1995] 2 SCR 377, are relevant for the point. H 2. Whether each successive awards or judgment and decree (if answer on question No. 1 is positive) would give cause of action to file application under Section 28-A; if so construed, does not such a construc­ tion violate the language used in Section ,28-A when the Parliament ad­ visedly did not use such expressions? These questions require examination by a larger Bench of five Judges as the interpretation of Section 28-A on the limitation of three months often arises in many a case throughout the country. Issue notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks. Petitioner is permitted to take out notice by dasti service in addition. We direct the Registry to place the cases before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Larger Bench of five Judges. Since these questions are arising in number of matters frequently, instead of keeping them pending, it is desirable that they may be disposed of at an early date. T.N.A. Petition disposed of.