Section 28A relief is unavailable to claimants who already pursued a reference, and finality bars reopening by belated court-fee correction.

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is confined to landowners who did not seek a reference under Section 18; a claimant who already pursued a reference and an appeal in the High Court cannot invoke that provision for redetermination. The court also declined to permit belated payment of deficit court fee and reopening of the award after about six years and after finality had attached, holding that inherent powers could not be used to unsettle concluded proceedings or excuse deliberate restriction of the claim. The application was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applied to claimants who had already sought a reference under Section 18 and pursued an appeal in the High Court; (ii) whether the court could, after about six years and after the appeal had attained finality, permit the petitioner to make good the deficit court fee and reopen the award under the inherent powers of the court.

Issue (i): Whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applied to claimants who had already sought a reference under Section 18 and pursued an appeal in the High Court.

Analysis: Section 28A is confined to persons interested in acquired land who did not seek a reference under Section 18. The statutory scheme permits redetermination only on the basis of an award made in a reference under Section 18 and upon a timely application to the Collector. A claimant who had already obtained a reference and carried the matter in appeal does not fall within that class.

Conclusion: The provision did not apply to the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the court could, after about six years and after the appeal had attained finality, permit the petitioner to make good the deficit court fee and reopen the award under the inherent powers of the court.

Analysis: The petitioner had consciously restricted its claim in the appeal and allowed the judgment of the High Court to become final. Unlike cases where appellants had kept the matter alive, the petitioner did not pursue further challenge in time. Permitting belated payment of deficit court fee in such circumstances would encourage avoidance of proper court fee and unsettle finality. The exceptional relief recognised in earlier compensation cases was held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the belated correction and enhancement sought through the application.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on the grounds of statutory inapplicability and finality of the earlier proceedings, and the dismissal of the application was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is available only to non-referree claimants, and a party that has already sought reference and allowed its appeal to attain finality cannot later invoke inherent powers to reopen the matter by paying deficit court fee after an inordinate delay.

---