LI Network
Published on: 15 August 2023 at 17:00 IST
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a ‘beneficiary of acquired land’ is not eligible to initiate a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“Act, 1894”) due to the specific prohibitions outlined in Section 25 and Section 50(2) of the Act, 1894.
A bench led by Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while addressing a petition filed in Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. And Others, has clarified that when there exists a specific limitation under Section 25 of the Act, 1894, the court cannot award compensation lower than the sum designated by the Collector.
The court decreed that the compensation amount determined by the Collector in line with Section 28A(2) of the Act, 1894, cannot be diminished by the reference court as per Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894. Allowing such an application by the beneficiary of the acquired land would counteract the legislative intent, the court asserted.
Case background:
The petitioner was a co-sharer of a plot in Village Chharra Rafatpur, Aligarh, which was acquired for constructing a new market yard by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (“Samiti”) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
After multiple rounds of litigation for increased compensation, the Authority granted the petitioner’s application under Section 28A(1) of the Act, 1894, leading to a reevaluation of compensation at Rs. 103.34 per sq. yards along with other legal benefits.
However, the disbursement of enhanced compensation was challenged by Samiti, stating that since a reference had been initiated by Samiti under Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894, against the redetermined award, increased compensation could not be granted until the reference’s resolution.
The petitioner contended that beneficiaries of acquired land do not fall under the ‘interested person’ category and thus cannot initiate a reference. Additionally, due to the specific limitation presented by Section 25 of the Act, 1894, the reference court cannot reduce the compensation set by the Collector.
High Court Verdict:
The central issue revolved around whether the application for reference under Section 28A (3) of the Act, 1894 is valid when initiated by a beneficiary of acquired land.
The court highlighted that provisions governing reference under Section 18 are applicable to references under Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894. Hence, the term ‘any person’ mentioned in Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894, can be interpreted as the ‘person interested’ who has not accepted the award.
The court acknowledged that while the Apex Court had ruled that any person interested in compensation would be treated as a beneficiary for being heard in a reference, beneficiaries of acquired land were not included in ‘interested persons’ for the purpose of filing an application for reference under Section 18 or 28A(3) of the Act, 1894, as per the proviso of Section 50(2) of the Act, 1894.
In light of these considerations, the court concluded that any specific statutory bar applicable to a reference under Section 18 also extends to a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894.
The court underscored that while the beneficiary’s voice is acknowledged during reference hearings, they are not considered ‘interested persons’ for initiating reference applications under these sections. The court emphasized that such references could counteract legislative intent and, as such, are not permissible.