1995 INSC 0968
                             Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodrigueses and Another

                                                           Vs

                                    Land Acquisition Collector and Another

                            SLPs (C) No. 24435 of 1995 with No. 24584 of 1995

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, B. L. Hansaria JJ)

                                                      13.11.1995

                                                        ORDER

1. Shri Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published on 3-10-1969 and the
award under Section 11 was made in the case of his clients on 2-8-1972 determining compensation
under Section 23(1) at Rs. 1.25 per sq. mt. for Plot No. 23 admeasuring 24,721 sq. mts.
Subsequently, successive awards for other lands acquired under the same notification were made, on
4-6-1985 at Rs. 5 per sq. mt., on 14-10-1985 at Rs. 9 per sq. mt. and another judgment and decree
on 31-8-1987 by the High Court in Appeal No. 11 of 1986 uniformly fixing the compensation at Rs.
5 per sq. mt. Yet another reference under Section 18 was decided on 27-7-1989 by the reference
court at Rs. 5 per sq. mt. Though he filed the application on 13-5-1987, in view of the decision of
this Court in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, any one of the awards or each successive award
including the judgment and decree of the High Court would give right and cause of action to the
petitioner-claimant to make application under Section 28-A. so, it cannot be dismissed on the
ground of delay. The views of the Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court are wrong in law.

2. Section 28-A says that where in an award under this part, the court allowed the application under
Section 18 and awarded higher compensation, notwithstanding that the claimant had not made an
application under Section 18, he can make an application "within three months from the date of the
award of the court" requiring that the amount of compensation payable to them may be
redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court. The proviso
prescribes the mode of computation of period of three months which says that :

                  "... 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."

3. The contention of the learned counsel is that any one of the successive awards including the
judgment and decree of the High Court would give right and cause of action to the petitioner to
make an application under Section 28-A. Therefore, there is no bar of limitation. A Bench of two
Judges of this Court in Babua Ram v. State of U. P. has held that the period of limitation begins to
run when the award on a reference under Section 18 was first made by the reference court and the
limitation of three months requires to be computed from the date of the first award and successive
awards do not save the limitation if it has already expired by efflux of time. The same view was
reiterated in another judgment in Union of India v. Karnail Singh. This view was subsequently
overruled by a Bench of three Judges.
4. In view of the contention raised by Shri Mehta, the following questions are required to be
considered :

                  1. Whether the award of the Court, i.e., civil court made under Section 26 on
                  reference under Section 18 would also include judgment and decree of the appellate
                  court under Section 54?"

                  2. Whether each successive award or judgment and decree (if answer on Question
                  No. 1 is positive) would give cause of action to file application under Section 28-A;
                  if so construed, does not such a construction violate the language used in Section 28-
                  A when Parliament advisedly did not use such expressions?

5. These questions require examination by a larger Bench of five Judges as the interpretation of
Section 28-A on the limitation of three months often arises in many a case throughout the country.

6. Issue notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks. Petitioner is permitted to take out notice
by dasti service in addition.

7. We direct the Registry to place the cases before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to constitute a
larger Bench of five Judges. Since these questions are arising in a number of matters frequently,
instead of keeping them pending, it is desirable that they may be disposed of at an early date.