Luttful Haque Vs. Collector (The Prescribed Authority, Under the Land Acquisition Act) and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
property - compensation for land acquisition - section 28a of land acquisition act, 1894 - land acquired for public purpose - compensation determined by two awards - compensation period enhanced in reference - holder of other award who has not filed reference entitled to redetermination of compensation. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 2. we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondents and perused the record. it has been strenuously urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was entitled to the reopening of the proceedings for the award of compensation as contemplated under section 28a of the land acquisition act as the requisite conditions contemplated thereinstood fully satisfied but the respondent no. 63 of 1984 which had been introduced to amend the land acquisition act in the lok sabha on 6th august, 1984 indicates that the reason behind the amendment proposing to insert section 28a in the land acquisition act was that the right of reference to the civil court under section 18 of the act was not usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and was usually exercised only by comparatively affluent land owners and this caused considerable inequality in the payment of compensation of the same or similar quality of land to different interested parties. state of haryana, reported in 1986 (4) scc 151 :(air 1987 sc 45), the benefits contemplated under the provisions contained in section 28a of the land acquisition act is intended and meant for inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under section 18 of the land acquisition act, 1894. it was further oberved in the aforesaid decision that there was no doubt that section 28a provides for the redetermination of the amount of. the apex court was emphatic in observing that if these conditions were satisfied the remedy provided under section 28a of the act can be availed of and in that event section 25 of the land acquisition act would also enure to the benefit of the person seeking relief under section 28a of the act. abani maity, reported in 1979 (4) scc 85: (air 1979 sc 1029), the court must give effect to well and inbuilt policy of the legislature as discernible from the object and scheme of the enactment and the language employed therein. 16. we are of the confirmed opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case as noticed by us hereinbefore and taking into consideration the legislative intent underlying the provision contained in section 28a of the land acquisition act as well as the ratio of the decisions referred to above, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.orders.p. srivastava, j.1. feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the collector/ land acquisition officer, rejectingthe application of the petitioner for the redetermination of the compensation awarded to him under section 28a of th'e land acquisition act, he has now approached this court for redress seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 23-7-1987 and a direction to the respondent no. 1 to redeter-mine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of the land in dispute.2. we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondents and perused the record.3. from the materials on record, it is apparent that a total area of 10 acres of land situate in villages lakhanpur alias abhian-pur, rewara paraspur and ahamadpur phulwaria were acquired in the proceedings initiated vide the notification dated 5-4-1978 under section 4 of the land acquisition act, in continuation whereof the notification under section 6 of the act was published on 13-4-1978. the plot no. 229 m having an area of 1 bigha 11 biswas and plot no. 230 having an area of 13 biswas situate in village ahmadpur phulwaria belonging to the petitioner formed part of the 10 acres of land which had been acquired as indicated above. under the same notification plot no. 24m having an area of 4 bighas, 7 biswas, 4 biswansis belonging to mewalal situate in village rewari paraspur had also been acquired which also formed part of the total area of 10 acres of land which was the subject matter of the aforesaid notification. this entire area had been acquired for the public purpose namely for the construction of government carpet institute at bhadohi in district varanasi. it appears that at the instance of mewalal, a reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act was made which was registered as land acquisition reference no. 150 of 1984. this reference was decided on 9-2-1987 by the court and under its award the compensation in respect of the land belonging to mewalal which formed part of the total 10 acres area which had been acquired for the public purpose was enhanced by allowing the reference in part vide the judgment and order of the vth additionaldistrict and sessions judge, varanasi dated 9th february, 1987.4. under the order dated 9th february, 1987, passed in land acquisition reference no. 150 of 1984, it has been noticed that the acquired land was situate near a railway station by the side of a pakka road and hospital, school and post office were also situate near the aquired land. it has also been noticed that in the vicinity of the acquired land a mill in the name and style of 'indra mills' was functioning which manufactured woollen threads. the amount of compensation had been enhanced holding the market value of the land to be rs. 4420/- per biswa on considering the residential and industrial capabilities and various other factors.5. subsequent to the order dated 9th february, 1987 whereunder allowing the reference in part enhancing the amount of compensation in respect of apart of the total area 'of 10 acres which formed the subject matter of the notification referred to above, the petitioner submitted an application on 30-4-1987 under section 28a of the land acquisition act, alleging that the land in dispute belonging to the petitioner formed a part of the entire land which had been acquired in the land acquisition proceedings initiated vide the notification under section 4 of the act dated 5-4-1978 for the public purpose of constructing govenment carpet institute at bhadohi, the compensation in respect of a part of which land had been enhanced under the award of the court vide the order passed in land acquisition reference no. 150 of 1984, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded to him by the land acquisition officer be redeter-mined. it may be noticed that the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of his part of the land out of the total area of 10 acres which had been acquired was fixed by the land acquisition officer to be rs. 7590/- as is apparent from the notice dated 24-6-1980. in this notice it has been mentioned that the aforesaid amount had been determined under the award no. 6 dated 20-6-1980. it is not disputed that the petitioner had not moved any application seekingreference under section 18 of the land acquisition act claiming a compensation at a higher amount.6. the application of the petitioner seeking redetermination of the amount of compensation was disposed of by the collector/land acquisition officer vide the impugned order dated 23-7-1987 whereunder it was rejected on the ground that the compensation awarded to the petitioner was under a different award in respect of a land situate in village ahrnadpur phulwaria which never became the subject matter of any reference. noticing that the amount of compensation awarded in respect of the land situate in village rewari paraspur under the reference no. 150 of 1984 it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits contemplated under section 28a of the land acquisition act on the basis of such enhancement of the amount of compensation even though it was in respect of a part of the total area of 10 acres of acquired land as it was situate in village rewari paraspur and arose out of a separate award dated 21-10-1980. the collector/landacquisition officer was of the view that since the awards determining the compensation for the land situate in villages ahmadpur phulwaria and rewari paraspur were different and as the compensation of any portion of acquired land situate in village ahmadpur phulwaria had never been enhanced therefore, the petitioner could not derive anybenefit out of the judgment and order dated9th feb. 1987, passed in land aquisition reference no. 150 of 1984.7. the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent no. 1 has completely missed the real import of the provisions contained in section 28a of the land acquisition act and has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him on manifestly erroneous assumption and extra-neous consideration. it has been strenuously urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was entitled to the reopening of the proceedings for the award of compensation as contemplated under section 28a of the land acquisition act as the requisite conditions contemplated thereinstood fully satisfied but the respondent no. 1 has refused to do so and has acted with manifest illegality in depriving the petitioner of a valuable right which stood secured in his favour under the statute.8. the learned standing counsel however, on the other hand has tried to support the impugned order on the mere fact that the land belonging to the petitioner formed part of the entire area of 10 acres which was the subject matter of the notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act referred to hereinbefore and was required for the same purpose for which the land which was the subject matter of the land acquisition reference no. 150 of 1984 referred to hereinabove had been acquired was wholly immaterial. the learned standing counsel tried to urge that since in the present case two -- awards in respect of portions of the total area sought to be acquired under the same notification had come into existence that made the whole difference and the provisions of section 28a of the land acqusition act cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner.9. we have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.10. the statement of objects and reasons of bill no. 63 of 1984 which had been introduced to amend the land acquisition act in the lok sabha on 6th august, 1984 indicates that the reason behind the amendment proposing to insert section 28a in the land acquisition act was that the right of reference to the civil court under section 18 of the act was not usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and was usually exercised only by comparatively affluent land owners and this caused considerable inequality in the payment of compensation of the same or similar quality of land to different interested parties. the aforesaid objects and reasons clarified that it was proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek redetermination of compensation once any one of them had obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court under p2 section 18 of the act. section 28a of the land acquisition act as it exists today was inserted without any change by section 19 of act no. 68 of 1984.11. as pointed out by the apex court in, its decision in the case of mewa ram v. state of haryana, reported in 1986 (4) scc 151 : (air 1987 sc 45), the benefits contemplated under the provisions contained in section 28a of the land acquisition act is intended and meant for inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under section 18 of the land acquisition act, 1894. it was further oberved in the aforesaid decision that there was no doubt that section 28a provides for the redetermination of the amount of. compensation provided the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. for such redetermination, the forum is the collector and the application has to be made before him within 30 days from the date of the award and this right is restrained to a person who had not applied for reference under section 18 of the act. the apex court was emphatic in observing that if these conditions were satisfied the remedy provided under section 28a of the act can be availed of and in that event section 25 of the land acquisition act would also enure to the benefit of the person seeking relief under section 28a of the act.12. this court had an occasion to consider the implications arising under section 28a of the land acquisition act in its decision in the case of jai narain v. state of u.p., decided on 4-8-1988, (civil misc. writ petn. no. 16782 of 1988), wherein a division bench of this court had observed that section 28a was a socio beneficial legislation added with avowed objective that if a person whose land had been acquired could not file an application for reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act for any reason he may do so even after the reference of another person had been decided and compensation had been enhanced. it was further observed that it was to put at par all those whose land was acquired by same notification in respect of compensation. in yet another decision ofthis court in the case of smt. sonapatti v. state of u.p. decided on 17-11-1988, a division bench of this court had observed that the provisions contained in section 28a of the land acquisition act being socio beneficial legislation, it should be construed liberally so that benefit may extend to every person whose land was acquired. in that case since it had been found that enhanced compensation had been awarded to other persons affected by the same scheme it was held just and proper to permit the petitioner of that case also to avail of the benefit of section 28a of the act.13. as observed by the apex court in the case of superintendent and remembrancer of legal affairs to government of west bengal v. abani maity, reported in 1979 (4) scc 85: (air 1979 sc 1029), the court must give effect to well and inbuilt policy of the legislature as discernible from the object and scheme of the enactment and the language employed therein.14. further in determining either the general object of the legislature or the meaning of its language in any particular passage, it is obvious that the intention which appears to be most in accord with convenience, reason, justice and legal principles should in all cases of doubtful significance, be presumed to be the true one.15. in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the mere fact that the total amount of compensation for the entire 10 acres of land acquired for the public purpose of constructing the government carpet institute at bhadohi was determined under separate awards could not be deemed to furnish a valid ground for denying the benefit of section 28a of the land acquisition act to the petitioner. since the respondent no. 1 itself had noticed that the enhanced compensation had been awarded to the other person affected by the same scheme, there could be no justification for refusing to reopen the matter relating to the award of compensation tp the petitioner as contemplated under section 28a of the act and depriving him of the statuatory right secured in his favour thereunder, specially when it is not disputed thatthe petitioner had not initiated any proceedings for enhancement of the compensation under section 18 of the land acquisition act.16. we are of the confirmed opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case as noticed by us hereinbefore and taking into consideration the legislative intent underlying the provision contained in section 28a of the land acquisition act as well as the ratio of the decisions referred to above, the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 cannot be sustained and the submissions made by the learned standing counsel representing the respondent no. 1 are without any merit and are not at all acceptable.17. in the result this writ petition succeeds in part. the impugned order dated 23-7-1987, passed by respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed with the direction to redetermine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner and proceed to dispose of his application for the purpose on merits in accordance with law following the procedure prescribed under section 23(2) of the land acquisition act.18. there shall however, be no order as to costs.19. order accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector/ Land Acquisition Officer, rejectingthe application of the petitioner for the redetermination of the compensation awarded to him under Section 28A of th'e Land Acquisition Act, he has now approached this Court for redress seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 23-7-1987 and a direction to the respondent No. 1 to redeter-mine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of the land in dispute.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents and perused the record.

3. From the materials on record, it is apparent that a total area of 10 acres of land situate in villages Lakhanpur alias Abhian-pur, Rewara Paraspur and Ahamadpur Phulwaria were acquired in the proceedings initiated vide the notification dated 5-4-1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in continuation whereof the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 13-4-1978. The plot No. 229 M having an area of 1 Bigha 11 Biswas and plot No. 230 having an area of 13 Biswas situate in village Ahmadpur Phulwaria belonging to the petitioner formed part of the 10 acres of land which had been acquired as indicated above. Under the same notification plot No. 24M having an area of 4 Bighas, 7 Biswas, 4 Biswansis belonging to Mewalal situate in village Rewari paraspur had also been acquired which also formed part of the total area of 10 acres of land which was the subject matter of the aforesaid notification. This entire area had been acquired for the public purpose namely for the construction of Government Carpet Institute at Bhadohi in district Varanasi. It appears that at the instance of Mewalal, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 150 of 1984. This reference was decided on 9-2-1987 by the Court and under its award the compensation in respect of the land belonging to Mewalal which formed part of the total 10 acres area which had been acquired for the public purpose was enhanced by allowing the reference in part vide the judgment and order of the Vth AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated 9th February, 1987.

4. Under the order dated 9th February, 1987, passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 150 of 1984, it has been noticed that the acquired land was situate near a railway station by the side of a Pakka road and hospital, school and post office were also situate near the aquired land. It has also been noticed that in the vicinity of the acquired land a mill in the name and style of 'Indra Mills' was functioning which manufactured woollen threads. The amount of compensation had been enhanced holding the market value of the land to be Rs. 4420/- per Biswa on considering the residential and industrial capabilities and various other factors.

5. Subsequent to the order dated 9th February, 1987 whereunder allowing the reference in part enhancing the amount of compensation in respect of apart of the total area 'of 10 acres which formed the subject matter of the notification referred to above, the petitioner submitted an application on 30-4-1987 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, alleging that the land in dispute belonging to the petitioner formed a part of the entire land which had been acquired in the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated vide the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 5-4-1978 for the public purpose of constructing Govenment Carpet Institute at Bhadohi, the compensation in respect of a part of which land had been enhanced under the award of the Court vide the order passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 150 of 1984, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Officer be redeter-mined. It may be noticed that the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of his part of the land out of the total area of 10 acres which had been acquired was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to be Rs. 7590/- as is apparent from the notice dated 24-6-1980. In this notice it has been mentioned that the aforesaid amount had been determined under the award No. 6 dated 20-6-1980. It is not disputed that the petitioner had not moved any application seekingreference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming a compensation at a higher amount.

6. The application of the petitioner seeking redetermination of the amount of compensation was disposed of by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer vide the impugned order dated 23-7-1987 whereunder it was rejected on the ground that the compensation awarded to the petitioner was under a different award in respect of a land situate in village Ahrnadpur Phulwaria which never became the subject matter of any reference. Noticing that the amount of compensation awarded in respect of the land situate in village Rewari Paraspur under the reference No. 150 of 1984 it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits contemplated under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act on the basis of such enhancement of the amount of compensation even though it was in respect of a part of the total area of 10 acres of acquired land as it was situate in village Rewari Paraspur and arose out of a separate award dated 21-10-1980. The Collector/LandAcquisition Officer was of the view that since the awards determining the compensation for the land situate in villages Ahmadpur Phulwaria and Rewari Paraspur were different and as the compensation of any portion of acquired land situate in village Ahmadpur Phulwaria had never been enhanced therefore, the petitioner could not derive anybenefit out of the judgment and order dated9th Feb. 1987, passed in Land Aquisition Reference No. 150 of 1984.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent No. 1 has completely missed the real import of the provisions contained in Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him on manifestly erroneous assumption and extra-neous consideration. It has been strenuously urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was entitled to the reopening of the proceedings for the award of compensation as contemplated under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act as the requisite conditions contemplated thereinstood fully satisfied but the respondent No. 1 has refused to do so and has acted with manifest illegality in depriving the petitioner of a valuable right which stood secured in his favour under the Statute.

8. The learned Standing Counsel however, on the other hand has tried to support the impugned order on the mere fact that the land belonging to the petitioner formed part of the entire area of 10 acres which was the subject matter of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act referred to hereinbefore and was required for the same purpose for which the land which was the subject matter of the Land Acquisition Reference No. 150 of 1984 referred to hereinabove had been acquired was wholly immaterial. The learned Standing Counsel tried to urge that since in the present case two -- awards in respect of portions of the total area sought to be acquired under the same notification had come into existence that made the whole difference and the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acqusition Act cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner.

9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

10. The statement of objects and reasons of Bill No. 63 of 1984 which had been introduced to amend the Land Acquisition Act in the Lok Sabha on 6th August, 1984 indicates that the reason behind the amendment proposing to insert Section 28A in the Land Acquisition Act was that the right of reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act was not usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and was usually exercised only by comparatively affluent land owners and this caused considerable inequality in the payment of compensation of the same or similar quality of land to different interested parties. The aforesaid objects and reasons clarified that it was proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek redetermination of compensation once any one of them had obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference Court under p2 Section 18 of the Act. Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act as it exists today was inserted without any change by Section 19 of Act No. 68 of 1984.

11. As pointed out by the Apex Court in, its decision in the case of Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in 1986 (4) SCC 151 : (AIR 1987 SC 45), the benefits contemplated under the provisions contained in Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act is intended and meant for inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was further oberved in the aforesaid decision that there was no doubt that Section 28A provides for the redetermination of the amount of. compensation provided the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. For such redetermination, the forum is the Collector and the application has to be made before him within 30 days from the date of the award and this right is restrained to a person who had not applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Apex Court was emphatic in observing that if these conditions were satisfied the remedy provided under Section 28A of the Act can be availed of and in that event Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act would also enure to the benefit of the person seeking relief under Section 28A of the Act.

12. This Court had an occasion to consider the implications arising under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in its decision in the case of Jai Narain v. State of U.P., decided on 4-8-1988, (Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 16782 of 1988), wherein a Division Bench of this Court had observed that Section 28A was a socio beneficial legislation added with avowed objective that if a person whose land had been acquired could not file an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for any reason he may do so even after the reference of another person had been decided and compensation had been enhanced. It was further observed that it was to put at par all those whose land was acquired by same notification in respect of compensation. In yet another decision ofthis Court in the case of Smt. Sonapatti v. State of U.P. decided on 17-11-1988, a Division Bench of this Court had observed that the provisions contained in Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act being socio beneficial legislation, it should be construed liberally so that benefit may extend to every person whose land was acquired. In that case since it had been found that enhanced compensation had been awarded to other persons affected by the same scheme it was held just and proper to permit the petitioner of that case also to avail of the benefit of Section 28A of the Act.

13. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to Government of West Bengal v. Abani Maity, reported in 1979 (4) SCC 85: (AIR 1979 SC 1029), the Court must give effect to well and inbuilt policy of the legislature as discernible from the object and scheme of the enactment and the language employed therein.

14. Further in determining either the general object of the legislature or the meaning of its language in any particular passage, it is obvious that the intention which appears to be most in accord with convenience, reason, justice and legal principles should in all cases of doubtful significance, be presumed to be the true one.

15. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the mere fact that the total amount of compensation for the entire 10 acres of land acquired for the public purpose of constructing the Government Carpet Institute at Bhadohi was determined under separate awards could not be deemed to furnish a valid ground for denying the benefit of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act to the petitioner. Since the respondent No. 1 itself had noticed that the enhanced compensation had been awarded to the other person affected by the same Scheme, there could be no justification for refusing to reopen the matter relating to the award of compensation tp the petitioner as contemplated under Section 28A of the Act and depriving him of the statuatory right secured in his favour thereunder, specially when it is not disputed thatthe petitioner had not initiated any proceedings for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

16. We are of the confirmed opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case as noticed by us hereinbefore and taking into consideration the legislative intent underlying the provision contained in Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act as well as the ratio of the decisions referred to above, the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No. 1 are without any merit and are not at all acceptable.

17. In the result this writ petition succeeds in part. The impugned order dated 23-7-1987, passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed with the direction to redetermine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner and proceed to dispose of his application for the purpose on merits in accordance with law following the procedure prescribed under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

18. There shall however, be no order as to costs.

19. Order accordingly.