Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ntpc Limited (Formerly Known As … vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 19 June, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:19095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP Nos. 2149 of 2024 a/w
CWP Nos. 2150, 2151, 2153,
2156 to 2159, 2207 to 2220,
2152, 2154, 2155, 2160 and
2161 of 2024
Decided on : 19.06.2025
1. CWP No. 2149 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
2. CWP No. 2150 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
3. CWP No. 2151 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
2
2025:HHC:19095
4. CWP No. 2153 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
5. CWP No. 2156 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
6. CWP No. 2157 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
7. CWP No. 2158 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
3
2025:HHC:19095
8. CWP No. 2159 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
9. CWP No. 2207 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
10. CWP No. 2208 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
11. CWP No. 2209 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
4
2025:HHC:19095
12. CWP No. 2210 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
13. CWP No. 2211 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
14. CWP No. 2212 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
15. CWP No. 2213 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
5
2025:HHC:19095
16. CWP No. 2214 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
17. CWP No. 2215 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
18. CWP No. 2216 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
19. CWP No. 2217 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
6
2025:HHC:19095
20. CWP No. 2218 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
21. CWP No. 2219 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
22. CWP No. 2220 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
23. CWP No. 2152 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
7
2025:HHC:19095
24. CWP No. 2154 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
25. CWP No. 2155 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
26. CWP No. 2160 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
27. CWP No. 2161 of 2024
NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited).
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
8
2025:HHC:19095
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior
Advocate, with M/s Ajeet Pal
Singh Jaswal, Amit Kumar
Dhumal and Richta Thakur,
Advocates, for the petitioner(s), in
respective petitions.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with Mr. Rajpal Thakur,
Additional Advocate General, for
the respondents-State, in all
petitions.
Mr. Surender Verma, Mr. Varun
Rana and Mr. Vikrant Chandel,
Advocates, for the respective
respondents, in respective
petitions.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
As common issues of law and facts are involved in
all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of vide a
common judgment.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these
writ petitions are that an Award was announced on 29.04.2006,
i.e. Award No. 48 of 2006, for acquisition of land measuring 53-
16-3 bighas in Village Panjolth, Hadbast No. 246, Tehsil Sunder
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
9
2025:HHC:19095
Nagar, District Mandi, H.P, for the construction of Koldam Hydro
Power Project by NTPC Limited, a Government of India
Undertaking, copy whereof is on record. Certain land owners,
whose land stood acquired, preferred Reference Petitions
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”) against the above mentioned Award.
The Reference Petitions were answered by the Court of
learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, camp at Sunder
Nagar, in terms of Annexure P-2, dated 22.03.2014, appended
with CWP No. 2149 of 2024, i.e. Reference Petition No. 71 of
2008, titled Mehar Chand & Ors. Vs. The Land Acquisition
Collector & anr. Along-with other connected matters. In terms
thereof, the compensation awarded by learned Land Acquisition
Collector was enhanced in the following terms:-
“23. In view of the discussion made above, the
reference petitions are answered accordingly and the
market value of the acquired land is held to be
Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of the kind and
nature of the land at the time of notification under
Section 4 of the Act and the petitioners are also held
entitled to the following relief:
10
2025:HHC:19095
a) solatium @ 30% under Section 23 (2) of the Act on
the compensation assessed under Section 23(1) of the
Act;
b) additional compensation under Section 23 (a-A) of the
Act @ 12% per annum on the market value determined
above from the date of publication of the notification
under Sec. 4 of the Act, till date of award of Collector;
c) interest @ 9% per annum on enhanced amount of
compensation under Section 23(1), additional
compensation under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium
under Section 23 (2) of the Act from the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act for the fist one
year and thereafter, @ 15% per annum. 06 MAR 2024;
d) interest under Section 34 of the Act if not paid.”
3. The private respondents in these cases did not
prefer any Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act
against the Award passed by learned Land Acquisition
Collector. However, after the Reference stood decided by the
Court of learned District Judge, they preferred applications
under Section 28-A of the Act. The applications filed by them
under Section 28-A of the Act, were not filed within three
months from the date of the Award i.e. the period prescribed in
11
2025:HHC:19095
the Act. All the applications were filed on 16.07.2014. It is a
matter of record that when the applications under Section 28-A
of the Act were filed by the private respondents herein, none of
their applications were accompanied by a certified copy of the
Award. In other words, the applications filed under Section 28-A
of the Act were filed beyond limitation and were not
accompanied by certified copies of the Award announced by
the learned Additional District Judge, on the strength whereof,
enhancement was being prayed by the land owners/private
respondents herein.
4. The petitioners herein, in response to the
applications, took a preliminary objection that the petitions
preferred under Section 28-A of the Act, were barred by
limitation.
5. In terms of the impugned orders, which are all akin
as far as findings are concerned and are verbatim the same,
the applications preferred under Section 28-A of the Act, were
allowed by learned Land Acquisition Collector on 28.12.2017
(copy of one of such orders is appended with CWP No. 2149 of
2024 as Annexure P-5). In terms of said order, the
12
2025:HHC:19095
compensation was enhanced in terms of the Award passed by
the learned Additional District Judge and the objection of the
present petitioners with regard to the maintainability of the
applications filed under Section 28-A of the Act, on the ground
of limitation, was rejected by observing that along-with the
private respondents herein, another land owner had preferred
an application under Section 28-A of the Act, who had
appended a certified copy of the Award and, therefore, it was
not necessary for all the applicants to file certified copies of the
Award, as the application filed by said land owner, was filed
within limitation.
6. The order passed by learned Land Acquisition
Collector was assailed by the petitioners under Section 28-A (3)
of the Act before learned Additional District Judge, Sunder
Nagar. The Reference Petitions were dismissed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sunder Nagar vide
order dated 16.11.2023 by, inter alia, holding that in terms of
the provisions of Section 28-A (3) of the Act, it was a person
who had not accepted the Award under sub-Section (2) of
Section 28-A of the Act, who could move a written application
13
2025:HHC:19095
to the Collector requiring the matter to be referred by the
Collector and because the petitioners before him were the
beneficiaries of the Award, therefore, they were not covered
under Sub-Section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner(s) i.e. NTPC has
preferred these writ petitions.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued
that the orders passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector, in
terms whereof, the plea of the petitioners that the applications
preferred by the land owners under Section 28-A of Act, were
time barred, stood rejected and the enhanced amount stood
awarded in favour of the land owners, are not sustainable in the
eyes of law. Learned Senior Counsel by referring to the
provisions of Section 28-A of the Act submitted that a land
owner, who intended to take benefit of Section 28-A of the Act,
ought to have approached the Authority within three months as
from the date of the passing of the Award, along-with a certified
copy of the Award and the period which was consumed in
obtaining of the certified copy, was only to be deducted while
calculating the period of limitation. He submitted that in the
14
2025:HHC:19095
present case, incidentally none of the land owners either
approached the Authority within the period of limitation nor any
of their applications were accompanied by a certified copy of
the Award. This extremely important aspect of the matter was
ignored by learned Land Acquisition Collector, while rejecting
the contentions of the petitioners that the applications were
time barred. Accordingly, he submitted that as the orders in
issue are per se bad, the same are liable to be set aside.
9. As far as the order passed by Learned Additional
District Judge on the applications filed by the petitioners under
Section 28-A (3) of the Act is concerned, learned Senior
Counsel candidly submitted that said applications, in fact, stood
erroneously filed, but filing of the same and adjudication thereof
in the year 2023, at least demonstrates that the petitioners
were pursuing their remedy bona-fidely, though before a wrong
Forum. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
Reference was filed by the petitioners, under Section 28-A (3)
of the Act, immediately after the orders were passed by the
Collector on the applications filed by the land owners under
Section 28-A of the Act, Reference whereof was made by the
15
2025:HHC:19095
Collector to the learned Additional District Judge, Sunder
Nagar, in the year 2018.
10. Learned counsel for the private respondents, on the
other hand, defended the order passed by learned Land
Acquisition Collector. They submitted that the land owners
though initially did not file the certified copies of the Award, but
when an office objection was raised, thereafter, certified copies
of Award were filed by them. Accordingly, they submitted that as
the irregularity was cured, therefore, the order passed by the
Authority cannot be set aside on the grounds, as stand agitated
before this Court by the petitioners. Learned counsel further
submitted that otherwise also, as the land owners indeed were
entitled for the benefit, as was vested in them, by the provisions
of Section 28-A of the Act, the technical pleas being raised by
the petitioners herein, should not come in between the land
owners and their actually getting the best price of the land,
which undisputedly stands acquired and utilized by the
petitioners. They further submitted that otherwise also, as one
of the land owners, had approached the Collector, whose
application was duly supported by a certified copy of the Award
16
2025:HHC:19095
and as all the land owners were placing reliance upon the said
Award, therefore, also the contention of the petitioners that the
order passed by the Collector is bad, is liable to be rejected.
Learned counsel for the private respondents further submitted
that otherwise also, these petitions stood filed belatedly against
the order passed by the Authority in the year 2017 and,
therefore also, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
They also relied upon certain judgments which I will refer to at a
later stage. On this count, they prayed that the petitions being
devoid of any merit, be dismissed.
11. A perusal of the response filed by the State in the
matters demonstrates that it has admitted the stand of the
petitioners that the applications filed by land owners were time
barred. None of the land owners except one, who incidentally is
not a party respondent in any of these writ petitions, filed
certified copy of the Award, benefit of which was being claimed
by them, along-with the applications preferred under Section
28-A of the Act. Learned Advocate General also submitted that
the order passed by the Collector was bad.
12. I have heard Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior
17
2025:HHC:19095
counsel and Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, learned counsel, for the
petitioners as well as Mr. Surender Verma, Mr. Varun Rana and
Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned counsel, for the private
respondents and also the learned Advocate General.
13. The moot issue to be determined by this Court is
whether the order passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector
dated 28.12.2017, on the applications filed by the private
respondents, under Section 28-A of the Act, is sustainable in
law or not. The validity of this order has to be seen from the
perspective of the fact that the applications filed under Section
28-A of the Act, were not filed within the statutory period
prescribed in Section 28-A of the Act.
14. Section 28-A of the Act reads as under:-
“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
18
2025:HHC:19095
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,
19
2025:HHC:19095
apply to such reference as they apply to a referenceunder section 18.”
15. A perusal of Sub-Section (1) of Section 28-A of the
Act demonstrates that where in an Award under Part 3 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Court allows the applicant (land
owner), 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 (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 of the Act, 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.
16. Proviso to Sub-Section (1) further provides that
while computing the period of three months within which an
application to the Collector shall be made under this Sub-
Section (1), the day on which the Award was pronounced and
the time spent for obtaining a copy of the Award shall be
20
2025:HHC:19095
excluded.
17. In the present case, the Award was announced by
the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, on
22.03.2014. Three months elapsed on 22.06.2014, even in
terms of the impugned order passed by the Collector. The
applications under Section 28-A of the Act, were filed by the
private respondents herein on 16.07.2014 i.e. after the period
of 90 days. The applications were not accompanied by certified
copies of the Award. This means that as on the date when the
land owners preferred the applications under Section 28-A of
the Act, before the Collector, the period of limitation had already
expired. Because the applications were accompanied by
uncertified copies of the Award, therefore, there was no
occasion for the Authority to grant them the benefit of the date
on which the certified copy of Award would have been applied
by the land owners and the day when certified copy thereof was
prepared by the Copying Agency. Therefore, undisputedly, the
applications filed under Section 28-A of the Act were beyond
the period of limitation.
18. Further, a perusal of Section 28-A of the Act
21
2025:HHC:19095
demonstrates that there is no provision in the said Section that
a time barred application can be entertained by the Authority
and the Authority has power to condone the delay.
19. In this backdrop, when one peruses the impugned
order, one finds that the objection that was raised by the
petitioners on the maintainability of applications on the ground
of limitation, has been dealt with by the Collector in the
following terms:-
“मिसल हजा बराय बै हस दिनांक 17-11-2017 को पे श हुई।
दोनो पक्षों को विस्तारपूर्वक सु ना गया। वादीगणों के अधिवक्ता ने
प्रार्थना पत्र में उठाए गये तथ्यों को दोहराते हुए तर्क दिया कि माननीय
अतिरिक्त जिला न्यायाधीश मण्डी (हि०प्र०) के घोषित कीमत भूमि के
अनु सार उसके मु वकिलों की अर्जित भूमि का मु आवजा अदा किया जाकर
अस्वीकार की जावे । प्रत्यार्थी के अधिवक्ता ने वितर्क दिया कि यह
अपील समय सीमा के बाहर दायर की गई है । प्रार्थीगणों को 22-03-
2014 के आदे शों के विरूद्ध दिनांक 24-06-2014 तक U/S 28A का
प्रार्थना पत्र दायर करना चाहिए था परन्तु यह प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक
16-07-2014 को दायर की गई है । इसलिए प्रार्थना पत्र खार्ज की
जावे । प्रार्थीगणों के अधिवक्ता ने प्रत्यु तर में तर्क दिया कि केस न 0
50/2014 शीर्षक जगरनाथ बनाम एल०ए०सी० के साथ अन्य 29 केस भू
अर्जन कार्यालय में एक साथ दिनांक 16-07-2014 को दायर किये गये
हैं । इसलिए केस न 0 50/2014 समय सीमा के अन्दर है तो अन्य मामले
भी उसी आधार पर स्वीकार किया जाये । क्योंकि सभी मामले एक ही
22
2025:HHC:19095
आवार्ड / गां व के हैं तथा मैं ने सभी फाइलों को Consolidate करने हे तूपार्थना पत्र भी दिया है । इसयो अतिरिक्त यदि मैं सभी प्रार्थीगणों को
एक ही अपील जगरनाथ में दर्ज करता तो समय सीमा का प्रश्न ही पै दा
नहीं होता। इसलिए बोस न० 51/2014 ता 79/2014 में प्रतिवादी द्वारा
उठाई गई समय सीमा बारे आपत्ति व्यर्थ है क्योंकि माननीय सु पर् ीम कोर्ट
AIR 2017 सु पर् ीम कोर्ट 4069 के मद न० 14 में तीन महीने बीत जाने के
बाद भी समय सीमा को माफ किया है । इसी प्रकार AIR 1995 सु पर् ीम
कोर्ट 2259 में भी अपीलार्थी के हक में फैसला सु नाया है इसलिए
प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार की जाये ।
दोनों पक्षों को सु नने व मिसल के साथ शामल दस्तावे जों का
गहन अध्ययन करने उपरांत पाया गया कि वादीगणों ने माननीय
अतिरिक्त जिला न्यायाधीश मण्डी (I) जिला मण्डी (हि०प्र०) के अवार्ड
वर केस न० 71/2008 दिनांक 22-03-2014 के आधार पर भू अर्जन
अधिनियम 1894 की धारा 28 ए के तहत प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 16-07-
2014 को दायर की है । जबकि भू अर्जन अधिनियम के प्रवाधान अनु सार
मियाद अवधि 90 दिन दिनांक 22-06-2014 तक पु रे होते थे ।
प्रार्थीगणों के अधिवक्ता ने दिनांक 16-07-2014 को एक अन्य अपील
के न० 50/2014 शीर्षक जगरनाथ बनाम एनटीपीसी दायर की है । जिसमें
उसने माननीय अतिरिक्त जिला न्यायाधीश मण्डी (1) जिला मण्डी
(हि०प्र०) के अवार्ड कैस न 0 71/2008 दिनांक 22-03-2014 की आवार्ड
की नकल प्राप्त करने हे तू दिनांक 25-03-2014 को प्रार्थना पत्र दायर
किया है और उसे 19-06-2014 को नकल प्राप्त हुई है । इस प्रकार 19-
06-2014 से प्रार्थी के 87 दिन मियाद के थे । उसने 27 दिनों के अन्दर
दायर की है जो अन्दर मियाद है । यह प्रार्थना पत्र भी प्रार्थीगणों के
23
2025:HHC:19095
अधिवक्ता द्वारा दिनांक 16-07-2014 को ही दायर की गई है । जिसेस्वीकार किया जाना न्याय सं गत है । इसके अतिरिक्त वादीगणों के
अधिवक्ता द्वारा दायर की गई AIR 2017 सु पर् ीम कोर्ट 4069 के मद
न 0 14 व AIR 1995 सु पर् ीम कोर्ट का अवलोकन करने उपरांत पाया
गया किं अनपढ गरीब जनता को समय सीमा में छट
ू दी गई है । इसलिएमाननीय अतिरिक्त जिला न्यायाधीश मण्डी (1) जिला मण्डी (हि०प्र०)
द्वारा घोषित अवार्ड वर कैस न० 71/2008 तारीख फैसला 22-03-2014
शीर्षक मे हरचन्द आदि बनाम एल०ए०सी० के माध्यम से मू अर्जन
समाहर्ता के अवार्ड न 0 48/2006 दिनांक 29-04-2006 में सं शोधन
किया है जो मु हाल पं जोलठ तह० सु न्दरनगर जिला मण्डी से सम्बन्धित
है । जिसकी अधिसूचना अधीन धारा-4 दिनांक 07-12-2000 को जारी
हुई है । इस अधिसु चना के अधीन प्रत्ये क वादी की 0-5-12 बीघा भूमि
मु हाल पं जोलत में कोलबां ध परियोजना हे तु अर्जित हुई है । इसलिये
वादीगण उपरोक्त वर्णित भूमि का भू अर्जन अधिनियम की धारा-28 ए के
अं र्तगत सं शोधित मु आवजा प्राप्त करने का हक रखते हैं ।”
20. The contents of the order passed by the Collector
quoted by me hereinabove demonstrate that the Collector held
that except one application i.e. Case No. 50 of 2014, none were
filed within the period of limitation. That being the case and
further in view of the fact that none of the applications filed by
the present respondents were accompanied by a certified copy
of the Award, it is not understood as to how limitation viz-à-viz
the present land owners was calculated by the Collector on the
24
2025:HHC:19095
strength of the documents filed by some other land owners.
21. This Court has no hesitation in holding that as far as
the compliance of Section 28-A of the Act is concerned, the
same is sacrosanct. A land owner, who approached the Court
under Section 28-A of the Act, is to comply with the conditions
mentioned therein. This means that the land owner has to
approach the Court within three months of the Award having
been passed in a Reference made by some other land owner
under Section 18 of the Act. He cannot file an application under
Section 28-A of the Act as per his own convenience, ignoring
the provisions of limitation.
22. As far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the
same has to be construed individually for each applicant, taking
into consideration the application filed by each land owner to be
an individual and independent case in itself. This extremely
important aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by
learned Land Acquisition Collector while deciding these cases.
He ignored that each application preferred under Section 28-A
of the Act, was a separate application/case. He ignored that
each application was liable to be scrutinized independently and
25
2025:HHC:19095
separately as to whether it was satisfying the test of limitation
or not. He ignored that there was nothing known as
consolidation as far as the calculation of limitation is concerned
and consolidation of matters could have been done only for the
purpose of final adjudication, if all were found to be within
limitation. Therefore, as the applications preferred by the
private respondents herein under Section 28-A of the Act were
filed beyond the period of limitation, the Authority had no
jurisdiction to either entertain them or to decide them on merit,
by treating them as having been filed within limitation on the
strength of a certified copy of the Award filed by some other
land owner in his own independent case.
23. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (2013) 10
SCC 765, titled Popat Bahiru Govardhane and others Vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, which judgment
incidentally relates to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act
and rejection of the application on the ground of limitation. In
the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to
certain other judgments passed earlier, has been pleased to
26
2025:HHC:19095
hold that it is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation
may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied
with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has
no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable
grounds. This statutory provision may cause hardship or
inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice
but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim
dura lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands
attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that,
“inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while
interpreting a statute. The relevant portion of said judgment is
quoted hereinbelow:-
“11. Section 28-A of the Act reads as under:
“28-A. Redetermination 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
27
2025:HHC:19095
under Section 4 sub-section (1) and who arealso 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 redetermined 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.”
12. In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land
Acquisition Officer & Anr., AIR 1961 SC 1500, this Court
dealt with the issue of limitation while dealing with an
application under Section 18 of the Act, and it was
observed therein that unless a party had knowledge of
the order, the question of approaching the appropriate
forum challenging the order, does not arise. Therefore, it
28
2025:HHC:19095
is the date of the knowledge from which the limitation
would start. The Court observed :
“6…..The knowledge of the party affected
by the award, either actual or constructive,
being an essential requirement of fairplay and
natural justice the expression…….In our
opinion, therefore, it would be
unreasonable……..
11. …where the rights of a person are
affected by any order and limitation is
prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy
by the person aggrieved against the said order
by reference to the making of the said order,
the making of the order must mean either
actual or constructive communication of the
said order to the party concerned…”
13. This Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Mangatu
Ram & Ors. (supra); and Tota Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors.
(supra), dealt with the issue involved herein and held that
as the Land Acquisition Collector is not a court and acts
as a quasi judicial authority while making the award, the
provisions of the Act 1963 would not apply and,
therefore, the application under Section 28A of the Act,
29
2025:HHC:19095
has to be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed
under Section 28A of the Act. The said provisions require
that an application for re-determination is to be filed
within 3 months from the date of the award of the court.
The proviso further provides that the period of limitation
is to be calculated excluding the date on which the award
is made and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of
the award.
14. In State of A.P. & Anr. v. Marri Venkaiah & Ors.
(Supra), this Court reconsidered the aforesaid judgments
including the judgment in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh
(supra) and held that the statute provides limitation of 3
months from the date of award by the court excluding the
time required for obtaining the copy from the date of
award. It has no relevance so far as the date of
acquisition of knowledge by the applicant is concerned.
In view of the express language of the statute, the
question of knowledge did not arise and, therefore, the
plea of the applicants that limitation of 3 months would
begin from the date of knowledge, was clearly
unsustainable and could not be accepted. The Court also
rejected the contention of the applicants that a beneficial
legislation should be given a liberal interpretation
30
2025:HHC:19095
observing that whosoever wants to take advantage of the
beneficial legislation has to be vigilant and has to take
appropriate action within time limit prescribed under the
statute. Such an applicant must at least be vigilant in
making efforts to find out whether the other land owners
have filed any reference application and if so, what is the
result thereof. If that is not done then the law cannot help
him. The ratio of the judgment in Raja Harish Chandra
Raj Singh (supra) was held to be non-applicable in case
of Section 28- A of the Act. The Court observed:
“11…….In that case, the Court
interpreted the proviso to Section 18 of the Act
and held that clause (a) of the proviso was not
applicable in the said case because the person
making the application was not present or was
not represented before the Collector at the time
when he made his award. The Court also held
that notice from the Collector under Section
12(2) was also not issued, therefore, that part
of clause (b) of the proviso would not be
applicable. The Court, therefore, referred to the
second part of the proviso which provides that
such application can be made within six months
31
2025:HHC:19095
from the date of the Collector’s award. In thecontext of the scheme of Section 18 of the Act,
the Court held that the award by the Land
Acquisition Officer is an offer of market price by
the State for purchase of the property. Hence,
for the said offer, knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the party affected by the award
was an essential requirement of fair play and
natural justice. Therefore, the second part of
the proviso must mean the date when either the
award was communicated to the party or was
known by him either actually or constructively.
12. The aforesaid reasoning would not
be applicable for interpretation of Section 28-A
because there is no question of issuing notice
to such an applicant as he is not a party to the
reference proceeding before the court. The
award passed by the court cannot be termed as
an offer for market price for purchase of the
land. There is no duty cast upon the court to
issue notice to the landowners who have not
initiated proceedings for enhancement of
compensation by filing reference applications;
32
2025:HHC:19095
maybe, that their lands are acquired by acommon notification issued under Section 4 of
the Act. As against this, under Section 18 it is
the duty of the Collector to issue notice either
under Section 12(2) of the Act at the time of
passing of the award or in any case the date to
be pronounced before passing of the award
and if this is not done then the period
prescribed for filing application under Section
18 is six months from the date of the Collector’s
award.”
15. In view of above, there is no occasion for us to
consider the judgments cited at the bar on behalf of the
appellants in support of its case. More so, the said
judgments have been delivered by this Court while
dealing with the applications under Section 18 of the Act.
If there are directly applicable precedents on the issue,
the same have to be followed rather than to search for a
new interpretation unless it is established that the earlier
judgments require reconsideration. The suggestion of
reconsideration has specifically been rejected by this
Court in Marri Venkaiah (supra).
16. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation
33
2025:HHC:19095
may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be
applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.
The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation
on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause
hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the
Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to
the same. The legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which
means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted
in such a situation. It has consistently been held that,
“inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered
while interpreting a statute. “A result flowing from a
statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power
to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a
distress resulting from its operation.””
24. Therefore, in the light of above discussion and the
law laid on by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the orders dated 28.12.2017, passed
by the Collector, in terms whereof the Collector entertained time
barred applications of the private respondents filed under
Section 28-A of the Act are per se bad in law and a nullity and
the same are accordingly quashed and set aside.
25. Before parting, this Court would like to refer to the
34
2025:HHC:19095judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents. In Shahid and others Vs. District Collector, Kollam
and others, AIR 1997, Kerala 216, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala
held that if a person applies under Section 28 A of the Land
Acquisition Act within 3 months from the date of Award, then
such an application cannot be rejected on the ground that the
application was not accompanied by a certified copy of the
Award as the certified copy can subsequently also be placed on
record and the applicant who are producing such certified copy
will get the benefit of the time spent for obtaining the certified
copy thereof. This Court is of the considered view that this
judgment is of no assistance to the present private respondents
for the reason that it is not their case that they had applied
under Section 28-A of the Act within the period of limitation.
Because they applied beyond the period of limitation, therefore,
the time spent by them in obtaining the certified copies which
were applied by the petitioner herein, after the period of
limitation had expired, would not give them any benefit as far as
the calculation of limitation is concerned.
26. As far as the judgment of this Court in CWP No.
35
2025:HHC:190952207 of 2017, Sant Ram and others Vs. NTPC and another,
along-with connected matters, decided on 28.05.2019, is
concerned, therein the Hon’ble Division Bench was not seized
of the issue as to whether the Collector was having any
authority of entertaining an application under Section 28-A of
the Land Acquisition Act filed beyond the period of limitation or
not. Therefore also, this judgment is of no assistance to the
respondents, more so, in the light of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that has been relied upon by me in the
above part of the judgment.
27. As far as the issue raised by the learned counsel for
the private respondents that the petitioners have approached
this Court against the order passed by the Collector at a
belated stage, their contention is liable to be rejected for the
reason that immediately after the order was announced by the
Collector, the petitioners were bona-fidely pursuing their
remedy by way of References under Section 28-A (3) of the
Act, which were subsequently rejected as not maintainable by
the Court concerned only in the year 2023.
28. In the light of the above observations, these writ
36
2025:HHC:19095petitions are allowed, to the extent that the order dated
28.12.2017, passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector is
quashed and set aside. As far as the order passed by learned
Additional District Judge is concerned, the observations made
therein by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be held
to be bad for the reason that invocation of the provisions of
Sub-Section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act, by the present
petitioners, was indeed bad in law, as they could not have
invoked the provisions of this Sub-Section as they happen to be
the interested party for whose benefit the acquisition
proceedings were undertaken.
29. Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed, in
above-said terms. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
JudgeJune 19, 2025
(Shivank Thakur)