# Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 421
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 22731 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Verma, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-prasad-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50890
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act,1894Sections 18, 28A(1), 28A(2), 28A(3) &
50(2)-challenge
to-compensationPetitioners filed for redetermination of
compensation u/s 28A of the Act based on
the revised Supreme Court rate ie Rs.120
per sq.yard-The collector initially rejected
this but following a High Court directions,
redetermined at Rs. 103.34 per sq. yard in
2023-Payment was withheld as the
beneficiary(respondent no. 3) filed a
reference u/s 28A(3) challenging the
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
award-Held, Section 28A(3) references
cannot be filed by beneficiaries like
respondent no. 3 due to statutory bars u/s
50(2)-Beneficiaries do not qualify as "
persons interested" under the provision of
section 28A(3) for filing references-The
collector's determination of compensation
u/s 28A(2) cannot be reduced by the
reference court, as prohibited by section
25 of the Act-Thus, the petitioners are
entitled
to
the
compensation
redetermined by the collector-The court
directed the beneficiary to release the
awarded amount within a month with
interest as per section 34 of the Act.(Para
1 to 19)

The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
421
before the Prescribed Authority, this Court
cannot go into this question.

29. Moreover, reliance placed by
election
petitioner
on
the
judgment
rendered
by
Apex
Court
in
K.Venkatachalam
(supra)
is
distinguishable in the present case, as in
that case writ of quo warranto, filed under
Article 226 before the Single Judge, was
dismissed as not maintainable, against
which an appeal preferred before the
Division Bench was allowed and the matter
was travelled up to the Apex Court, which
confirmed the order of Division Bench.

30. In the instant case the election
petitioner had preferred an election petition
under Section 12-C of the Act of 1947,
which was allowed by the Prescribed
Authority. The order passed in election
petition had been reversed by the
Revisional
Court,
which
is
under
challenge in the present proceedings
and no relief of quo warranto has been
sought against the Returned Candidate,
but the order passed by Revisional
Court is under challenge.

31. In the proceedings under Section
12-C of the Act of 1947, the election
petitioner has to state the grounds and the
concise summary of facts which has
materially affected the result of the
election. The pleadings has to be specific in
regard to the result of the election insofar
as it concerned the Returned Candidate and
had materially affected by the alleged non
compliance with the provisions of the Act
or Rules.

32. Thus, the question, framed above,
stands answered in view of the decision of
Full Bench of this Court in case of Ram
Adhar Singh (supra) and Constitution
Bench judgment of this Court in Ram
Sewak Yadav (supra).

33. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, I find that the
election petition filed by the election
petitioner lacks basic pleadings. Hence, the
order passed by Revisional Court needs no
interference.

34. The writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 421
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VERMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ C No. 22731 of 2023

Rajendra Prasad Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Krishna Pandey, Sri Kripa Shankar
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Archit Mandhyan, Sri Suresh C.
Dwivedi

Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act,1894Sections 18, 28A(1), 28A(2), 28A(3) &
50(2)-challenge
to-compensationPetitioners filed for redetermination of
compensation u/s 28A of the Act based on
the revised Supreme Court rate ie Rs.120
per sq.yard-The collector initially rejected
this but following a High Court directions,
redetermined at Rs. 103.34 per sq. yard in
2023-Payment was withheld as the
beneficiary(respondent no. 3) filed a
reference u/s 28A(3) challenging the
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
award-Held, Section 28A(3) references
cannot be filed by beneficiaries like
respondent no. 3 due to statutory bars u/s
50(2)-Beneficiaries do not qualify as "
persons interested" under the provision of
section 28A(3) for filing references-The
collector's determination of compensation
u/s 28A(2) cannot be reduced by the
reference court, as prohibited by section
25 of the Act-Thus, the petitioners are
entitled
to
the
compensation
redetermined by the collector-The court
directed the beneficiary to release the
awarded amount within a month with
interest as per section 34 of the Act.(Para
1 to 19)

The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs Mohd.
Yakoob & ors..(2022)AIR All 291, First Appeal
No. 305 of 2021

2.
Shekhar
Resorts
Ltd.
Vs
U.O.I.
MANU/SC/0015/2023

3. Yogesh Agarwal Vs Estate Officers & ors..
MANU/UP/1620/2015

4. Himalayan Tiles & Marbles Pvt Ltd. Vs Francis
Victor Coutinho (dead) (1980) 3 SCC 223

5. U.O.I. & anr. Vs Sher Singh & ors.. (1993) 1
SCC 608

6. Sandeep Kumar Bafna Vs St.of Mah. &
anr.(2024) 16 SCC 623

17. Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee
Vs Siddha Math & ors.. (2015) 16 SCC 542

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Suresh C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 and learned Standing
Counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2.

2. By means of the present petition,
the petitioner is seeking direction to the
respondents to pay compensation awarded
by order dated 27.2.2023 passed by
respondent No.2, u/s 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 1894").

3. Factual matrix arising out of the
present case is that the petitioner was the
co-sharer of 1/3 share of plot No. 235 area
4 bigha 17 biswa, situated at Village
Chharra Rafatpur, Aligarh. The aforesaid
plot was acquired by notification dated
27.4.1984 issued u/s 4(1) of the Act, 1894,
followed by notification u/s 6 of the Act,
1894 for the construction of a new market
yard
of
respondent
No.3.
Collector
determined the rate @ Rs.16.66 per sq.
yard. Though the petitioner received the
compensation under protest, he did not file
reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 because of
his poor financial condition, but his cosharers in plot No. 235 had filed reference
against the award of Collector u/s 18 of the
Act,
1894
which
was
allowed
on
21.8.1998, in Land Acquisition Reference
(L.A.R.) No. 36 of 1990 (Bhagwati Prasad
and others vs. State of U.P. and others), by
which the compensation was enhanced by
fixing rate @ Rs. 100 per sq. yard.
Aggrieved of the aforesaid, the petitioner
moved an application on 31.8.1998 u/s
28A(1) of the Act, 1894 before respondent
No.2 for redetermination of compensation
on the basis of judgement passed in L.A.R.
No. 36 of 1990. During the pendency of the
aforesaid application of the petitioner,
respondent No.3 filed an appeal against the
order of reference court award dated
21.8.1998 before this Court bearing Appeal
No. 609 of 1998 (Krishi Utpadan Mandi
2 All. Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
423
Samiti vs. Bhagwati Prasad and others),
and claimants have also filed cross
objection against the aforesaid award of
reference court. The High Court, after
hearing the aforesaid appeal, dismissed the
appeal of respondent No.3 but partly
allowed the cross-appeal of the claimants
on
8.9.2015
by
granting
additional
compensation
of
Rs.80,000/-
to
the
claimants. The co-sharer of the petitioner,
not satisfied with the judgement of the
High Court dated 8.9.2015, had preferred
Civil Appeal No. 10225-10226 of 2018
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the
Apex Court was pleased to allow the same
by order dated 5.10.2018 fixing the
compensation of the land @ Rs.120 per sq.
yard. The petitioner for getting the benefit
of the enhanced rate of compensation,
determined by the Supreme Court, also
moved an additional application before
respondent No.2 on 18.12.2018 as part of
his earlier pending application u/s 28A(1)
of the Act, 1894. Respondent No.2, by
order
dated
2.5.2022,
rejected
the
application of the petitioner filed u/s
28A(1) of the Act, 1894. Feeling aggrieved
by the order dated 2.5.2022, the petitioner
filed Writ Petition No. 20476 of 2022
(Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs. State of U.P.
and others) before this Court, and the same
was allowed by order dated 6.8.2022 and
respondent No.2 was directed to pass a
fresh order on the application of the
petitioner u/s 28A(1) of the Act, 1894, after
hearing all the parties. In pursuance of the
order of the High Court dated 6.8.2022
passed in Writ Petition No. 20476 of 2022
filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2
passed an order dated 27.2.2023 by which
he allowed the application of the petitioner
u/s
28A(1)
of
the Act,
1894
and
redetermined the compensation @ Rs.
103.34 per sq. years along with other
statutory benefits.

4. Submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that despite the order
dated 27.2.2023 of respondent No.2 for
redetermination of compensation, the same
was not paid to him.

5. Learned counsel for respondent
No.3 contended that as respondent No.3
has filed reference u/s 28A(3) of the Act,
1894 against redetermined award dated
27.2.2023 by respondent No.2, therefore,
till the decision of the aforesaid reference
enhanced amount of compensation cannot
be disbursed to the petitioner. However,
learned Standing Counsel has stated that
S.L.O. has already written a letter dated
27.2.2023 to respondent No.3 to deposit the
compensation as per the order dated
27.2.2023 so that the same could be
disbursed to the petitioner. But it is
respondent No.3 who has not deposited the
compensation of the petitioner, and for
these reasons, the same could not be paid to
him.

6. Learned counsel for respondent
No.3, in support of his contention, relied
upon the judgement of this Court passed in
First Appeal No. 305 of 2021 (U.P. Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Mohd. Yakoob
and others; AIR 2022 ALL 291) decided
on 3.6.2022 and contended that the
Division Bench while passing the above
judgement clearly observed that at the
instance of the beneficiary of the acquired
land, though appeal u/s 54 of the Act, 1894
is not maintainable, there is a remedy to file
an application for reference u/s 28A(3) of
the Act, 1894. It was further submitted by
learned counsel for respondent No.3 that
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement
of Shekhar Resorts Ltd. vs. Union of
India, reported in MANU/SC/0015/2023 as
well as this High Court in Yogesh Agarwal
vs. Estate Officers and others reported in
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
MANU/UP/1620/2015 held that that no
party can be left remediless for operation of
law, therefore, in absence of any other
provision against the order passed u/s
28A(2) of the Act, 1894, application for
reference is maintainable u/s 28A(3) of the
Act, 1894 at the instance of beneficiary of
acquired land.

7. In reply to the objection of
respondent No.3, learned counsel for the
petitioner specifically submitted that the
application for reference u/s 28A(3) of the
Act, 1894 against the order passed u/s
28A(2) is not maintainable at the instance
of the beneficiary of the acquired land
because that provision is for the benefit of
land owners whose land has been acquired
and the beneficiary does not come within
the definition of 'interested person'. It was
further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that even if it is accepted for the
sake of argument that the reference is
maintainable, even then reference court
cannot reduce the amount of compensation
as determined by the Collector because of
the provision of Section 25 of the Act,
1894. Therefore, there is no reason to file
an application for reference by the
respondent No.3 u/s 28A(3) of the Act,
1894, and the entire exercise is being
conducted by respondent No.3 just to delay
the
disbursal
of
the
amount
of
compensation to the petitioner.

8. After considering the submission as
well as on perusal of record, the only issue
for determination in the present case arises
is whether the application for reference
under Section 28A (3) of the Act, 1894 is
maintainable at the instance of the
beneficiary of land (respondent no.3). It
would be relevant to reproduce Section28A of the Act, 1894 and the same is being
reproduced as under :

"[28A. 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 under section 4, subsection (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
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.

(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, required 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.]"

9. From the perusal of Section 28A(3)
of the Act, 1894, it appears that two parts of
2 All. Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425
this provision are necessary. First is "any
person who has not accepted the award"
and second is "provisions of Sections 18
and 28 of the Act, 1894 shall also be
applied to such reference" as they are
applied to reference under Section 18 of the
Act, 1894. Therefore, from the above part
of Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894, it is
clear that this provision is almost pari
materia with Section 18 of the Act, 1894
regarding reference against the award of
Collector u/s 18 of the Act, 1894. For the
maintainability of the application for
reference, a person must be personally
interested; therefore, the word 'any person'
mentioned in Section 28A(3) of the Act,
1894, can be interpreted as the 'person
interested' who has not accepted the
award. Section 18 of the Act, 1894, being a
relevant provision for this controversy, is
being reproduced as under :

"18. Reference to Court. - (1) Any
person interested who has not accepted the
award may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be
referred
by
the
Collector
for
the
determination of the Court, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the
land, the amount of the compensation, the
person to whom it is payable, or the
apportionment of the compensation among
the persons interested.

(2) The application shall state the
grounds on which objection to the award is
taken:

Provided
that
every
such
application shall be made-

(a) if the person making it was
present or represented before the Collector
at the time when he made his award, within
six weeks from the date of the Collector's
award;

(b) in other cases, within six
weeks of the receipt of the notice from the
Collector under section 12, sub-section (2),
or within six months from the date of the
Collector's award, whichever period shall
first expire.

3. Without prejudice to the
provisions of sub-section (1) the Land
Reforms Commissioner may, where he
considers the amount of compensation
allowed by the award under section 11 to
be excessive, require the Collector that the
matter be referred by him to the Court for
determination
of
the
amount
of
compensation.

Explanation.- In any case of land
under Chapter VII the requisition under
this sub-section may be made by the Land
Reforms Commissioner at the request of the
company on its undertaking to pay all the
costs consequent upon such requisition.

4. The requisition shall state the
grounds on which objections to the award
is taken and shall be made within six
months from the date of the award."

10. Term 'person interested' has
been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the judgement of Himalayan Tiles and
Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor
Coutinho (dead) reported in (1980) 3 SCC
223 and Union of India and another Vs.
Sher Singh and others reported in (1993) 1
SCC 608. In both the judgements, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court though clearly held
that the 'person interested' also includes
the beneficiary of land; therefore, they also
have the right to be heard or to file an
objection before the court during reference
by taking into consideration Section 50(2)
of the Act, 1894 which is being reproduced
as under:-

"(2) In any proceeding held
before a Collector or Court in such cases
the local authority or Company concerned
may appear and adduce evidence for the
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
purpose of determining the amount of
compensation.

Provided that no such local
authority or Company shall be entitled to
demand a reference under section 18."

11. Paragraph No.14 of the judgement
in Himalayan Tiles (supra) is also being
quoted as below :

"Thus, the preponderance of
judicial opinion seems to favour the view
that the definition of 'person interested'
must be liberally construed so as to'
include a body, local authority, or a
company for whose benefit the land is
acquired and who is bound under an
agreement to pay the compensation. In our
opinion, this view accords with the
principles of equity, justice and good
conscience. How can it be said that a
person for whose benefit the land is
acquired
and
who
is
to
pay
the
compensation is not a person interested
even though its stake may be extremely
vital? For instance, the land acquisition
proceedings may be held to be invalid and
thus a person concerned is completely
deprived of the benefit which is proposed to
be given to him. Similarly if such a person
is not heard by the Collector or a court, he
may
have
to
pay
a
very
heavy
compensation which, in case he is allowed
to appear before a court, he could have
satisfied it that the compensation was far
too heavy having regard to the nature and
extent of the land. We are, therefore, unable
to agree with the view taken by the Orissa
High Court or even by the Calcutta High
Court that a company, local authority or a
person or whose benefit the land is
acquired is not an interested person. We are
satisfied that such a person is vitally
interested both in the title to the property as
also in the compensation to be paid
therefor because both these factors concern
its future course of action and if decided
against him, seriously prejudice his rights.
Moreover, in view of the decision of this
Court referred to above, we hold that the
appellant was undoubtedly a person
interested as contemplated by s. 18(1) of
the Act. The High Court, therefore,
committed an error in throwing out the
appeal of the appellant on the ground that
it had no locus to file an appeal before the
Bench."

12. The above view, taken in
Himalayan Tiles (supra), was approved in
the judgement of the Union of India and
another Vs. Sher Singh and others
(supra).

13. From the above judgements, it is
very clear that Hon'ble Supreme Court
treated the beneficiary as a person
interested in compensation for the purpose
of hearing them at the time of hearing of
reference before the court, but the Hon'ble
Court did not observe that the beneficiary
of the acquired land will also be treated as
person interested for the purpose of filing
application for reference either u/s 18 or
28A(3) of the Act, 1894 against the award
of Collector because proviso of Section
50(2) of the Act, 1894 clearly provides that
no such local authority or company shall be
entitled to demand a reference u/s 18 of the
Act, 1894. Therefore, there is a specific
statutory bar on the part of the beneficiary
of acquired land to make any reference u/s
18 of the Act, 1894. This Court is of the
opinion that bar also applies on reference
u/s 28A(3) of the Act, 1894.

14. Though this Court, in the
judgement of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad vs. Mohd. Yakoob and others
(supra) observed that appeal u/s 54 of the
2 All. Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427
Act, 1894 against the award of Collector
u/s 28A of the Act, 1894 is not
maintainable, but also observed that
remedy u/s 28A (3) of the Act, 1894 is
available
to
the
beneficiary
without
considering the proviso of Section 50(2) of
the Act, 1894. Even though there was no
issue before the court in the above
judgement whether the application for
reference under 28A(3) of the Act, 1894 is
maintainable at the instance of the
beneficiary, therefore, proviso of Section
50(2) of the Act, 1894 was not placed
before the court and for that reason that
could not be considered. Therefore, the
above judgement relied upon by respondent
no.3 can be said to be per incuriam because
of non-consideration of the statutory bar of
proviso of Section 50(2) of the Act, 1894.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement
of Sandeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, reported in
(2014) 16 SCC 623 observed in paragraph
No.19 as under:-

"It cannot be over-emphasised
that
the
discipline
demanded
by
a
precedent
or
the
disqualification
or
diminution of a decision on the application
of the per incuriam rule is of great
importance, since without it, certainty of
law, consistency of rulings and comity of
Courts would become a costly casualty. A
decision or judgment can be per incuriam
any provision in a statute, rule or
regulation, which was not brought to the
notice of the Court. A decision or judgment
can also be per incuriam if it is not possible
to reconcile its ratio with that of a
previously pronounced judgment of a
Coequal or Larger Bench; or if the decision
of a High Court is not in consonance with
the views of this Court. It must immediately
be clarified that the per incuriam rule is
strictly and correctly applicable to the ratio
decidendi and not to obiter dicta. It is often
encountered in High Courts that two or
more mutually irreconcilable decisions of
the Supreme Court are cited at the Bar. We
think that the inviolable recourse is to
apply the earliest view as the succeeding
ones would fall in the category of per
incuriam."

15. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Sri Jagannath Temple
Managing Committee vs. Siddha Math
and others, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 542
observed in paragraph No. 35 as under:-

"It becomes clear from a perusal
of the case law adverted to by the learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant
Temple
Committee
that
a
judgment can be said to be per incuriam
when it is passed in forgetfulness or
ignorance of a statute operating in that
field. The notification dated 18.03.1974
vested the estates of Lord Jagannath, Puri
in the State Government in view of the
amended provision of the proviso to Section
2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 inserted by way
of an Amendment in the year 1974. The
judgment in the case of Lord Jagannath
was passed only on consideration of the
OEA Act, 1951. The provisions of the
Temple Act, 1955, which is the principal
Act that applies to the Lord Jagannath
Temple, Puri were not adverted to at all."

16. Therefore, from the legal position
discussed above, it is clear that if the
judgement is rendered in ignorance of any
statutory provision, then that will be
deemed to be per incuriam and will not
have a binding effect on that particular
issue. Therefore, the judgement rendered
by the Division Bench of this Court in U.P.
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Mohd.
Yakooband others (supra) has no binding
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
effect on the issue of maintainability of
application for reference u/s 28A(3) of the
Act, 1894 against the order of the Collector
passed u/s 28A(2) of the Act, 1894.

17. Even the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner regarding Section
25 of the Act, 1894 also appeared to be
correct because once there is specific bar
u/s 25 of the Act, 1894, the court shall not
award compensation less than the amount
awarded by the Collector, therefore, the
amount of compensation determined by the
Collector u/s 28A(2) of the Act, 1894
cannot be reduced by the reference court
u/s 28A(3) of the Act, 1894. Therefore,
permitting such an application on the part
of the beneficiary of acquired land will
amount to frustrating the intention of the
legislature. From the perusal of the order of
respondent No.2, it is also clear that before
passing the order u/s 28A(2) of the Act,
1894,
respondent
No.3
was
heard;
therefore, proper opportunity of hearing
was accorded to respondent No.3.

18. In view of the above considered
position, this Court is of the view that
application for reference u/s 28A(3) of the
Act, 1894 is not maintainable at the
instance of respondent No.3 and this Court,
in the judgement of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad vs. Mohd. Yakoob and others
(supra) has not laid down any law
regarding the maintainability of such
application on the part of the beneficiary of
the acquired land.

19. Accordingly, this writ petition is
allowed, and direction is issued to
respondent No.3 to forthwith release the
awarded amount u/s 28A(2) of the Act,
1894 by order dated 27.2.2023 within a
period of one month from the date of
receiving a certified copy of this order
along with interest as per Section 34 of the
Act, 1894.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 428
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ C No. 22806 of 2023

Rakesh Kumar Goswami & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla, Sri Lalit Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Archit Mandhyan, Sri Suresh C.
Dwivedi

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Land Acquisition Act,1894Sections 18, 28A(1), 28A(2), 28A(3) &
50(2)-challenge
to-compensationPetitioners filed for redetermination of
compensation u/s 28A of the Act based on
the revised Supreme Court rate ie Rs.120
per sq.yard-The collector initially rejected
this but following a High Court directions,
redetermined at Rs. 103.34 per sq. yard in
2023-Payment was withheld as the
beneficiary(respondent no. 3) filed a
reference u/s 28A(3) challenging the
award-Held, Section 28A(3) references
cannot be filed by beneficiaries like
respondent no. 3 due to statutory bars u/s
50(2)-Beneficiaries do not qualify as "
persons interested" under the provision of
section 28A(3) for filing references-The
collector's determination of compensation
u/s 28A(2) cannot be reduced by the
reference court, as prohibited by section
25 of the Act-Thus, the petitioners are
entitled
to
the
compensation