( 2025:JHHC:19509 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 70 of 2024 Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O.+P.S.-Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh … … Opposite party/Appellant Versus Kaushaliya Devi wife of Late Fulchand Mahto (Deleted vide order dated 10/04/2024) 1. Bhawani Mahto, son of Late Fulchand Mahto 2. Madhu Mahto, Son of late Fulchand Mahto 3. Sadum Devi, wife of Arajlata Mahto All resident of village-Heramdaga, P.O.+P.S.-Gola, Thana No. 22, District-Hazaribagh, now Ramgarh … … Appellants/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A. III : Mr. P.C. Sinha, A.C. to G.A. III For the Respondents : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate --- 09/17.07.2025 This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 23.12.2022 passed in L.R. Case No. 144 of 2017 (Award no. 08 signed on 12.01.2023) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II- cum-L.A. Judge, Ramgarh arising out of Reference made by the Collector under Land Acquisition Officer, Tenughat Project, Hazaribagh in connection with Land Acquisition Case No. 06/2001- 02. Submissions of behalf of the appellant 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that only legal issue involved in this case as to whether Award is barred by limitation. The learned counsel has submitted that in the impugned judgment and Award, at the opening paragraph it has been recorded that the case was instituted pursuant to the letter issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Tenughat, Project Hazaribagh and the corresponding letter number of the present case is letter No. 172 dated 25.03.2017. He submits that it has been wrongly mentioned therein that the Reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned counsel has referred to the order sheet of the learned court and has submitted that the order sheet dated 22.09.2017 ( 2025:JHHC:19509 ) 2 which is the date of initiation of the proceedings before the learned court clearly reveals that the reference was made under Section 28A(III) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter the learned counsel has referred to provision of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and has submitted that application under Section 28 A can be filed within three months from the date of the Award of the Court with a prayer to re-determine the amount of compensation on the basis of amount of compensation awarded by any Court and such an application can be filed by persons interested in other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1), but they could not make an application under Section 18 seeking reference . He submits that as per the provision of law, if one or the other person has filed an application under Section 18 and the compensation has been enhanced, then a fresh application for re-determination under Section 28A cannot be filed. He submits that proviso to Section 28-A(1) clearly mentions that the three months has to be calculated from the date of pronouncement by the court and the time period consumed for obtaining the certified copy is to be excluded. 3. The learned counsel then referred to the order dated 11.07.2008 passed in L.R. Case No. 244/2007 to 250/2007 arising out of the same Notification which is involved in the present case issued under Section 4 and has submitted that the said judgment and Award was passed by the Court of Sub-Judge-II, Hazaribag on 11.07.2008 and in the present case the application under Section 28-A was filed on 29.08.2016. He has referred to Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal. The learned counsel submits that there is a gap of about 8 years in filing the application under Section 28-A and therefore the application filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act was hopelessly barred by limitation as it could have been filed only within a period of three months. The learned counsel has submitted that though in paragraph 3 of the application filed before Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act it has been mentioned by the applicant that the petition under Section 28-A was filed on 09.08.2008 but the said application was lost by the office ( 2025:JHHC:19509 ) 3 clerk of District Land Acquisition Officer and a statement has also been made that the application was docket registered on 09.08.2008 in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, but no evidence was brought on record in support of such a statement. He has also submitted that even in oral evidence, no such statement was made. 4. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the show cause filed before the learned court, a plea was raised that the claim was barred by limitation. He has also submitted that though no parawise reply was given to the petition filed under Section 28-A but a statement was made in paragraph 8 of the show cause that the statement made in the claim petition and in support of claim for compensation were denied and disputed and it was also asserted that the applicant had received the compensation amount without any protest and objection. 5. The learned counsel thereafter referred to the records of the case as received from the court concerned and has submitted that the compensation was received by the applicants on 13.12.2007 and no objection was recorded while receiving the compensation. The learned counsel submits that though no specific statement was made by the witnesses on behalf of the opposite parties before the learned court that the application was barred by limitation, but an objection having been raised in the show cause, it was also the duty of the court to see that the application was within the period of limitation as prescribed under the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act . 6. The learned counsel submits that on the face of the materials placed on record, the application was hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore the compensation could not have been enhanced by referring to the judgment dated 11th July 2008 passed in L.R. Case No. 244 to 250 of 2007 wherein the rate of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 8923 per decimal. 7. The learned counsel submits that since the petition under Section 28-A was barred by limitation, therefore the learned court ought to have dismiss the petition and there was no scope for the learned court to follow the judgement dated 11th July 2008 passed in ( 2025:JHHC:19509 ) 4 L.R. Case No. 244 to 250 of 2007 to enhance the quantum of compensation. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3685 (Banwari and Others versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIDC) and Another) and has referred to paragraph 10 of the said judgment and has submitted that in paragraph 10, the judgment of Pradeep Kumari was referred wherein the application under Section 28-A was filed within three months from the date of the Award passed in another reference case. He has in particular referred to paragraph 11 and 12 of the said judgment. He has submitted that in the said judgment it has been held that application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is required to be filed within three months from the date of the judgment. Submissions on behalf of the respondents 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that statement made in the application filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act that the application was earlier filed under Section 28- A on 09.08.2008 and it was duly docketed in the records of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Project Tenughat, Hazaribag was not denied by the appellant before the learned court. The learned counsel has further submitted that the application was initially filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and he after being satisfied referred the matter to the court himself and did not exercise the power under Section 28-A to enhance the compensation amount. The learned counsel submits that under the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act was barred by limitation. He has further submitted that in the show cause reply, parawise comment was not given and it was simply stated that the claim of the applicant was barred by law of limitation, estoppel, acquiescence and waiver. In the reply at paragraph 8 it was simply stated that in the claim petition and in support of the claim for ( 2025:JHHC:19509 ) 5 compensation, the statements were denied. He has also submitted that at the stage of evidence also, the appellant did not raise any objection with regard to limitation nor any question was put to the witnesses of the claimant on the point of limitation. 10. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the merit of the case is concerned, the materials has been duly considered by the court and primarily the impugned Award is based on the compensation fixed by virtue of the Award dated 11.07.2008 passed in L.R. Case No. 244/2007 to 250/2007 which was also subsequently followed in another batch of cases being L.R. Case No. 145 of 2017, 151 of 2017 to 155/2017 dated 31.08.2022. Findings of the Court 11. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that it is not in dispute that the Notification involved in the present case under Land Acquisition Act is notification No. 541 dated 20.11.2003 published in Gazette on 02.12.2003. The award was prepared in connection with numerous persons and so far as the claimants involved in the present case are concerned, it was prepared on 06.01.2006 and the amount was received by them in the month of December, 2007 on or about 13.12.2007. The records of the case reveal that no objection as such was mentioned at the time of receiving the award in the month of December, 2007. It is further not in dispute that the claimants herein did not prefer any application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act . However, some of the claimants arising out of the same notification of acquisition of land had filed their objection under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was numbered as L.R. Case No. 244 of 2007 to L.R. Case No. 250 of 2007 and the award was prepared in the said case which was enhanced to flat rate for the land so acquired at the rate of 8923 per decimal. The award in that case was passed by the Sub Judge-II, Hazaribag on 11.07.2008 and the said award attained finality. 12. Section 28-A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is quoted as under:- ( 2025:JHHC:19509 ) 6 “28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court-(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount 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 not made an application 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 compensation 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 sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18. 13. The aforesaid provision was subject matter of consideration in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari reported in (1995) 2 SCC 746. The said judgment passed in the case of Pradeep Kumari (supra) was also considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3685 decided on 10.12.2024. In the recent judgment of the ( 2025:JHHC:19509 ) 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgement of Pradeep Kumari has been quoted at length in paragraph 10 and the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act has been summarized in paragraph 11 and 12 and the condition precedent while moving an application under Section 28-A (1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been mentioned in paragraph no. 14 of the judgment. In the said judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3685 (supra) the Notification under Land Acquisition Act was dated 17th November, 2004 and aggrieved by the Award, some similarly situated persons had filed application under Section 18 which was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Judge vide judgment dated 17th January, 2012 and in the First Appeal, the High Court vide judgment dated 2nd May, 2016 enhanced the compensation with statutory benefits. The application under Section 28-A was filed on 30th June, 2016 by the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated 15th September, 2020 held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the High Court. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order and the High Court was a view that application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act can be filed within three months from the judgment of the Reference Court under Section 18, but not from the judgment of the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment ultimately held that the application was maintainable after the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court whereby the compensation was enhanced. 14. Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties this court is of the view that the sole point for determination in the present case as to whether the learned court ought to have held that the claim of the respondents was barred by limitation. No other point has been argued. 15. Admittedly the claimant had not filed any objection under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently their case was never referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the present case admittedly, the respondents had filed their application under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act before the Special Land ( 2025:JHHC:19509 ) 8 Acquisition Officer, Tenughat Project, Hazaribagh on 29.08.2016 and the application was filed before the Land Acquisition Officer and not directly before the court. In the said application the respondents had stated that they had earlier filed an application dated 09.08.2008 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act which was certainly immediately after the judgement passed in the case of L.R. Case No. 244 to 250/2007 passed vide judgment dated 11th July 2008 arising out of the same land acquisition proceeding. This Court finds that a prayer was made by the applicant before the Land Acquisition Officer to determine the compensation in the light of the judgment passed in L.R. Case No. 244/07 to 250/07. 16. The 1st objection which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant in the present case had accepted the Award way back in the year 2007 without any protest and for that purpose they have referred the materials placed on record. However, this court finds that the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is a special provision. This Court finds that the conditions for moving an application under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act is that the person moving an application had not moved any application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and this situation in the beneficial legislation is takes care of by the provision of Section 28-A so that all similarly situated persons covered under the same notification are treated at par. 17. This Court finds that in the present case Special Land Acquisition Officer instead of determining the compensation himself had referred the matter to the court by virtue of the letter No.172 dated 25.03.2017 under Section 28-A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The records of the case reveals that the Collector instead of passing any order under sub section 2 of Section 28-A referred the matter to the court under Section sub section 3 of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned court thereafter decided the case by the impugned judgment. From perusal of the application filed under Section 28-A and the reply filed which was referred to the learned court for consideration and the show cause which was filed by the ( 2025:JHHC:19509 ) 9 opposite party to the case namely the Deputy Commissioner it is apparent that there is no specific denial of the facts stated in petition filed under Section 28-A that the applicant had filed an application under Section 28-A on 09.08.2008 and that it was docketed in the register of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Project, Tenughat, Hazaribag on 09.8.2008 (28-A petition). This fact has not been specifically denied by the appellant in their show cause filed before the court. The statement made in the petition filed under Section 28-A having not been specifically denied in the show cause cannot be said to be a disputed fact. 18. This Court is of the considered view that even if the claimants had not made specific statement in connection with earlier filing of their petition on 09.08.2008 and its docketing on 09.08.2008 in the records of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Project Tenughat, the same is not fatal to the case of the claimant. The fact remains that the said Land Acquisition Officer had referred the case to the court without himself allowing or rejecting the claim made under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act and thus without disposing of the petition under Section 28-A. The order, if any, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on the claim under Section 28-A has not been brought on record nor the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any such order of rejection by the Special land Acquisition Officer, regarding the claim of the applicants under Section 28-A. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the very purpose of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari (supra) and also reiterated in the judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online 3685 this court is of the considered view that the claim of the respondents cannot be said to be barred by limitation when the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tenughat at Hazaribagh had not rejected the petition under Section 28-A. This Court is of the considered view that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tenughat at Hazaribagh at the first instance ought ( 2025:JHHC:19509 ) 10 to have decided the claim made under the said Section 28-A (2) of the Act and after such determination if the party is aggrieved, the application was to be filed before the Collector for referring the matter to the court under Section 28-A (3) of the Act. The competent statutory authority having neither rejected the claim under Section 28- A on any ground, much less, on the ground of limitation nor allowed the claim and straightaway referred the matter to the court and the court took up the matter as a reference under section 18 and decided the case on merits by referring to evidences produced on record. Therefore, there was no occasion for the learned court to hold that the claim of the respondents made under Section 28-A was barred by limitation when the authority competent to deal with the petition under Section 28-A did not reject the same on the ground of limitation or on any other ground. 20. However, the matter having been referred to the court without any order rejecting or accepting the application of the applicant under Section 28-A, the matter was treated by the court as a reference under section 18 and the case has been decided on merits after considering the various evidences placed on record including the various sale deeds and discussed each one of them and ultimately based the finding on the basis of the judgment passed in Case No. 244 of 2007 and other analogous cases dated 11.07.2008. 21. In view of the aforesaid findings, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Award. 22. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 23. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 17/07/2025 Binit