Section 28-A limitation and statutory benefits: later enhancement does not revive claims, and Collector cannot independently grant solatium.

Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 operates prospectively and is triggered only by the earliest qualifying reference award under Section 18 within the three-month limitation period; a later reference award or the Supreme Court's enhancement of compensation does not create a fresh or successive cause of action for a non-protesting claimant. Statutory benefits such as solatium and interest are consequential to court-ordered enhancement and are not independently grantable by the Collector under Section 28-A(2). The text states that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to award those benefits, the High Court could not sustain that approach, and the redetermination was treated as a nullity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a later reference award or the Supreme Court's subsequent enhancement of compensation furnished a fresh cause of action under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a non-protesting claimant who had not sought reference earlier; (ii) Whether the Collector and the High Court could award statutory benefits, including solatium and interest, while acting under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Issue (i): Whether a later reference award or the Supreme Court's subsequent enhancement of compensation furnished a fresh cause of action under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a non-protesting claimant who had not sought reference earlier.

Analysis: Section 28-A was held to operate prospectively from 24 September 1984. The right to seek redetermination arises from the earliest award on a reference under Section 18 and the limitation period of three months runs from that award. A later award in another reference does not revive a lapsed limitation or create a fresh or successive cause of action. The Supreme Court's own enhancement in appeal also does not furnish a fresh basis for an application under Section 28-A. The plea of parity in compensation was rejected on the same reasoning.

Conclusion: No fresh cause of action arose from the later award or the Supreme Court's enhancement, and the application under Section 28-A could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector and the High Court could award statutory benefits, including solatium and interest, while acting under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: Statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 are consequential to enhancement of compensation by the Court and are not an independent power of the Collector under Section 28-A(2). The Collector had no jurisdiction to grant those benefits on the basis of the redetermination, and the High Court likewise had no power to substitute such benefits into the Collector's award. The resulting order was therefore legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The award of statutory benefits was without jurisdiction and the High Court's order affirming it was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the High Court were set aside, the writ petition stood dismissed, and the Collector's redetermination under Section 28-A(2) was held to be a nullity.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is prospective and is triggered only by the earliest qualifying reference award within limitation, while statutory benefits are incidental to court-awarded enhancement and cannot be independently granted by the Collector under Section 28-A.

---