TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which re-determination is sought. In Pradeep Kumari's case (supra) six conditions have been mentioned in order to enable a person to seek re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to him, and the above-noted six conditions are as below: (i) An award has been made by the court under Part III after the coming into force of Section 28-A; (ii) By the said award the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 has been allowed to the applicant in that reference; (iii) The person moving the application under Section 28-A is interested in other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) to which the said award relates; (iv) The person moving the application di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il Singh (supra) wherein this Court held that the limitation of three months for an application for redetermination of compensation mst be computed from the date of the earliest award made by a civil court and not the judgment rendered by an appellate court. 5. The dissention as noticed above between the three judges Bench and the two judges Bench judgments however is rather restrictive since in both Babua Ram and Karnail Singh, they sought to confine the right to seek determination to the earliest award made by the court under Section 18 of the Act after the introduction of Section 28-A into the Act. 6. Subsequently, however, in Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R.Rodriguese and another v. Land Acquisition Collector and another , a three judges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation in so far as Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (as amended) is concerned. In the normal course of events were would have framed certain questions for determination but since the issue such as fairly elaborated in two questions noted in Jose Antonia's decision (supra) we do not feel it expedient to introduce further questions since answer to the same would resolve the principal disputes in most of these matters placed before this Bench excepting however in two matters (SLP(CC) No.2919 of 2000, BBMB, Punjab v. Sita Devi Anr.; and SLP(CC) No.3141 of 2000, BBMB Punjab v. Basu Dev Anr.) wherein Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Advocate appearing in support of the petitions raised following two questions which we also feel it expedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
