Beneficiary Of Acquired Land Cannot File Reference U/S 28A(3) Of Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the 'beneficiary of acquired land' is not entitled to file reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act, 1894") in view of the specific bars under Section 25 and Section 50(2) of the Act, 1894.

A bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while adjudicating a petition filed in Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. And Others, has held that once there is a specific bar under Section 25 of the Act, 1894, the Court shall not award compensation less than the amount awarded by the Collector.

Accordingly, the Court ruled, the amount of compensation determined by the Collector under Section 28A(2) of the Act, 1894, cannot be reduced by the reference court under Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894. "Therefore, permitting such an application on the part of the beneficiary of acquired land will amount to frustrating the intention of the legislature," the Court said.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Petitioner was co-sharer of a plot in Village Chharra Rafatpur, Aligarh, which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act, 1894") for the construction of a new market yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (“Samiti”).

After several rounds of litigation for enhancement of compensation, the Authority passed an order allowing the application of the Petitioner u/s 28A(1) of the Act, 1894 and redetermined the compensation at Rs. 103.34 per sq. yards along with other statutory benefits.

The Petitioner approached the High Court for payment of enhanced compensation. However, Counsel for Samiti objected that since a reference has been filed by Samiti under Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894 against the redetermined award, enhanced compensation cannot be disbursed till the decision of the reference.

The Respondent placed reliance on U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Mohd. Yakoob and others, wherein the Allahabad High Court had held that beneficiaries of acquired land can file applications for reference under Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894. 

The Petitioner argued that the beneficiary of acquired land does not fall within the definition of an ‘interested person’. Therefore, any reference at his insistence would be non-maintainable. Further, due to the specific bar under Section 25 of the Act,1894, the reference court cannot reduce the compensation determined by the Collector.

HIGH COURT VERDICT

The issue before the Court was whether the application for reference under Section 28A (3) of the Act, 1894 is maintainable at the instance of the beneficiary of acquired land.

The Court noted that provisions of reference under Section 18 shall be applicable to any reference under Section 28A(3) of the  Act, 1894. Therefore, the word 'any person' mentioned in Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894, can be interpreted as the ‘person interested’ who has not accepted the award.

"Even the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Section 25 of the Act, 1894 also appeared to be correct because once there is specific bar u/s 25 of the Act, 1894, the court shall not award compensation less than the amount awarded by the Collector, therefore, the amount of compensation determined by the Collector u/s 28A(2) of the Act, 1894 cannot be reduced by the reference court u/s 28A(3) of the Act, 1894. Therefore, permitting such an application on the part of the beneficiary of acquired land will amount to frustrating the intention of the legislature."

The Court observed that though the Apex Court in Himalayan Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead), has held that any person interested in compensation would be treated as beneficiary for the purposes of being heard in a reference. However, the beneficiary of the acquired land has not been included in ‘interested persons’ “for the purpose of filing application for reference either u/s 18 or 28A(3) of the Act, 1894 against the award of Collector because proviso of Section 50(2) of the Act, 1894 clearly provides that no such local authority or company shall be entitled to demand a reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894”.

Thus, the Court held that any specific statutory bar on making a reference under Section 18, would be applicable to reference under Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894.

"From the above judgements, it is very clear that Hon'ble Supreme Court treated the beneficiary as a person interested in compensation for the purpose of hearing them at the time of hearing of reference before the court, but the Hon'ble Court did not observe that the beneficiary of the acquired land will also be treated as person interested for the purpose of filing application for reference either u/s 18 or 28A(3) of the Act, 1894 against the award of Collector because proviso of Section 50(2) of the Act, 1894 clearly provides that no such local authority or company shall be entitled to demand a reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894. Therefore, there is a specific statutory bar on the part of the beneficiary of acquired land to make any reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894. This Court is of the opinion that bar also applies on reference u/s 28A(3) of the Act, 1894."

As regards the co-ordinate bench judgment of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Mohd. Yakoob and Others, the Court observed that if a  judgement is rendered in ignorance of any statutory provision, then that will be deemed to be per incuriam and will not have a binding effect on that particular issue. The Co-ordinate bench Court did not consider the specific bar placed by Section 50(2) of the Act, 1894 on the local authorities and body corporates from making any reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1984. 

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to Samiti to pay the enhanced compensation.

Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs. State of U.P. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 257 [Writ C No. – 22731/2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 257

Counsel for Petitioner: Kripa Shankar Shukla and Ram Krishna Pandey.

Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C. Archit Mandhyan and Suresh C. Dwivedi.

Click Here To Read/Download Order