Limitation Period Under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act Held to Be Sacrosanct – Plea of Knowledge of Award Date Rejected – Judicial Precedents Affirmed – Petition Dismissed

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that: a) Section 28A’s limitation period of three months is mandatory and sacrosanct. b) The petitioner’s plea that the limitation should start from the date of knowledge was rejected. c) Judicial precedents, including Supreme Court rulings, affirm that the statutory period must be strictly adhered to.

The application for enhanced compensation filed after the statutory period was rightfully rejected as time-barred.

The period of three months under Section 28A is to be reckoned from the date of the award and not the date of knowledge. Beneficial legislation does not override statutory limitations. Judicial discipline mandates adherence to established interpretations of statutory provisions. (Para 22 to Para 31)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India – Article 226, Article 300A

2. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11, Section 18, Section 28A

Subjects: Land Acquisition – Enhanced Compensation – Limitation Period – Section 28A – Knowledge of Award – Beneficial Legislation – Constitutional Right – Re-determination of Compensation – Delay – Time-Barred

Nature of the Litigation: The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to declare Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as procedurally improper and to quash the rejection order refusing enhanced compensation due to delayed application.

Relief Sought by the Petitioner: a) Declaration that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act is procedurally improper, arbitrary, and against public welfare policy. b) Quashing of the order dated 23 November 2022 rejecting the application for enhanced compensation due to delay of 44 days. c) Interim stay on the implementation of the impugned order pending the final disposal of the petition.

Reason for Filing the Case: The petitioner sought enhanced compensation for land acquisition, claiming the delay in applying under Section 28A was due to family bereavements and mental distress.

Previous Decisions: The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the petitioner’s application for enhanced compensation on the ground of being time-barred under Section 28A.

Issues:

1. Whether the application for enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed beyond the statutory period of three months, could be condoned due to exceptional circumstances.

2. Whether the limitation period under Section 28A starts from the date of knowledge of the award or from the date of the award itself.

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments: a) Section 28A is a beneficial legislation meant to protect economically weaker landowners. b) Delay was caused due to exceptional circumstances of family bereavements and psychological distress. c) Limitation should be counted from the date of knowledge of the award, not from the date of the award.

Respondents’ Arguments: a) The statutory period of three months under Section 28A is sacrosanct and not subject to extension. b) The petitioner’s application was ex-facie time-barred and hence not maintainable. c) Judicial precedents affirm that the period of limitation begins from the date of the award, not from the date of knowledge.