Land acquisition re-determination fails when based on a Lok Adalat consent award, and a later reference is premature.

An application for re-determination under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not maintainable where the underlying award was a Lok Adalat consent award, because section 28A(1) applies only when a Court award under Part III grants compensation above the Collector's award. A further reference under section 28A(3) was also premature, since that provision operates only after an award is made under section 28A(2) on the re-determination application. The petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of the section 18(3)(b) application was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under section 28A(1) and a consequential application under section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were maintainable when the underlying award was a Lok Adalat consent award and no award had been made under section 28A(2).

Analysis: Section 28A(1) permits re-determination only where there is an award of a Court under Part III of the Act granting compensation in excess of the Collector's award. A consent award passed by a Lok Adalat was not treated as such an award. Section 28A(3) becomes available only after an award is made under section 28A(2) determining compensation payable on the application under section 28A(1). As no award under section 28A(2) had been made, the request for reference under section 28A(3) was premature and not maintainable.

Conclusion: The applications under sections 28A(1) and 28A(3) were not maintainable, and the dismissal of the petitioner's application under section 18(3)(b) was upheld.

---