Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4(1) was published on 24 March 1971, and the Collector made an award under Section 11 on 10 July 1971. The appellants, along with other landowners, had sought a reference under Section 18 to the Additional District Judge, who enhanced the compensation under Section 26. Thereafter, the appellants did not pursue an appeal to the High Court under Section 54. Some other claimants, however, filed RFA No. 1326/78 (also referred to as RFA No. 1326/79) and obtained a further enhancement of compensation at Rs. 135 per square yard from the High Court. Subsequently, the appellants filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer, claiming the same enhanced rate. The Land Acquisition Officer dismissed their application on 10 May 1993 in L.C. case No. 51/91. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed their revision petition on 21 September 1993, leading to the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether Section 28-A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 entitled the appellants—who had already availed the remedy of reference under Section 18 but had not filed an appeal under Section 54—to claim compensation at the enhanced rate awarded by the High Court in an appeal filed by other claimants. The appellants contended that they should receive the same compensation as other landowners under the same notification and that denial violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The State opposed the claim, maintaining that Section 28-A had no application to persons who had already invoked the reference remedy. The Supreme Court examined the text of Section 28-A(1). It noted that the provision allows persons interested in other land covered by the same Section 4(1) notification, who had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, to apply within three months for re-determination of compensation based on the award of the reference court. The proviso excluded time taken to obtain a certified copy. The Court reasoned that the remedy is available only to those aggrieved persons who received compensation without protest and did not seek a reference. Since the appellants had availed the reference under Section 18 and obtained an enhancement, then failed to appeal under Section 54, they could not claim the benefit of an appellate enhancement under Section 28-A. The Court also observed that Section 28-A applies when compensation is enhanced by the award and judgment of the reference court under Part III of the Act, not when it is enhanced by the High Court under Section 54. The Court relied on the decisions in Scheduled Castes Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda v. Union of India and Babu Ram v. State of U.P. to hold that claimants who availed Section 18 are not entitled to additional amount under Section 28-A when the High Court enhances compensation. The argument based on Article 14 was rejected as no longer res integra in view of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Babu Ram. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the orders of the Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Section 28-A Applicability - Eligibility limited to persons who did not seek reference under Section 18 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 18, 28-A(1) - Appellants had availed reference under Section 18 and obtained enhancement from Additional District Judge but did not appeal under Section 54; later they applied under Section 28-A based on High Court enhancement in another case. The Supreme Court held that Section 28-A(1) is available only to those aggrieved persons who received compensation without protest and did not make an application under Section 18. Held that appellants were not entitled to benefit. (Paras 1-3) B) Land Acquisition - Appellate Enhancement and Section 28-A - Enhancement by High Court under Section 54 not covered by Section 28-A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 26, 28-A(1), 54 - The remedy under Section 28-A is anchored to the award of the reference court under Part III of the Act, not to appellate enhancement under Section 54. Since the compensation was enhanced by the High Court in an appeal under Section 54, the appellants could not invoke Section 28-A to claim parity. Held remedy unavailable. (Paras 1-3) C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 Equality - Discrimination claim rejected - Constitution of India, Article 14 - Appellants argued that denial of same compensation violated equality. The Court relied on K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Babu Ram v. State of U.P. to hold that the issue is no longer res integra and concluded against the appellants. Held no violation. (Paras 1-3) D) Precedent - Binding Effect - Prior Supreme Court decisions followed - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 28-A - Scheduled Castes Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda v. Union of India and Babu Ram v. State of U.P. established that claimants who availed Section 18 are not entitled to additional amount under Section 28-A when the High Court enhances compensation. Held appeals dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Acquisition Officer was right in refusing to award compensation at Rs. 135 per sq.yd. to the appellants under Section 28-A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when they had already availed the remedy of reference under Section 18 but had not filed an appeal under Section 54 against the reference court's enhancement, and whether such denial violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the orders of the Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court, holding that the appellants were not entitled to enhanced compensation under Section 28-A(1); no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 28-A(1) of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 is available only to persons who did not make an application for reference under Section 18 and received compensation without protest
- Section 28-A(1) cannot be invoked when compensation is enhanced by High Court under Section 54
- claimants who availed remedy under Section 18 are not entitled to additional amount under Section 28-A when High Court enhances compensation
- Article 14 discrimination claim based on denial of parity rejected as no longer res integra
- time limit for Section 28-A application is three months from date of award of reference court with certified copy time excluded
