Section 28-A compensation relief extends to time-barred reference claimants and landowners who accepted awards without protest.

Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a beneficial provision enabling redetermination of compensation for landowners who did not make an effective Section 18 reference. A Section 18 reference rejected as time-barred is treated as no effective application, so the landowner is not barred from invoking Section 28-A if other statutory conditions are met. Receipt of compensation without protest, by itself, does not disqualify a claimant from seeking redetermination where no Section 18 reference was pursued. The provision is to be construed liberally to advance its remedial purpose and avoid adding restrictions not found in the statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dismissal of an application for reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether such a person can maintain an application under Section 28-A. (ii) Whether a person who received compensation without protest and did not seek a reference under Section 18 is a person aggrieved entitled to apply under Section 28-A.

Issue (i): Whether dismissal of an application for reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether such a person can maintain an application under Section 28-A.

Analysis: Section 28-A is a beneficial provision intended to extend the advantage of enhanced compensation to landowners who had not effectively availed themselves of a reference under Section 18. The expression "had not made an application" was construed to mean that the claimant had not made an effective application which resulted in a reference being entertained and decided on merits. Where a reference application is rejected as time-barred, it does not mature into an effective reference. Reading the provision literally in that situation would defeat the object of the section and unjustly deny the statutory benefit.

Conclusion: Dismissal of a Section 18 reference application on the ground of delay is treated as not filing an application within Section 28-A, and the landowner remains entitled to apply under Section 28-A if the other statutory conditions are satisfied.

Issue (ii): Whether a person who received compensation without protest and did not seek a reference under Section 18 is a person aggrieved entitled to apply under Section 28-A.

Analysis: The receipt of compensation under the Collector's award, whether with protest or without protest, is irrelevant for Section 28-A where the person has not pursued a reference under Section 18. The statutory scheme does not impose acceptance of compensation as a disqualification. To read such a restriction into the provision would add a condition not enacted by Parliament and would narrow the remedial scope of the provision.

Conclusion: Such a claimant is a person aggrieved within Section 28-A and may seek redetermination of compensation, subject to fulfilment of the statutory requirements.

Final Conclusion: The reference questions were answered in favour of the landowners, confirming a liberal construction of Section 28-A so that procedural rejection of a Section 18 reference and receipt of compensation do not by themselves bar redetermination claims.

Ratio Decidendi: A beneficial compensation statute must be construed to give effect to its remedial purpose, and a time-barred or otherwise non-effective Section 18 reference does not amount to a disqualifying application for the purpose of Section 28-A.

---