Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The initial notification under Section 4(1) was published on July 10, 1979, and the Collector made an award under Section 11 on March 13, 1981. The respondents/claimants received compensation without protest but later sought reference under Section 18, leading to enhancement by the civil court under Section 26 on November 6, 1985. Dissatisfied, they appealed to the High Court, which further enhanced compensation on May 21, 1987. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Section 28A on December 4, 1987, and the Collector determined compensation based on the High Court judgment by award dated February 28, 1989. The Union of India challenged that award by writ petition, which the High Court dismissed on July 13, 1994, leading to the present appeal. The core legal issue was whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act could be invoked after a judgment of the High Court under Section 54, or whether it applied only to awards made by a court on reference under Section 18. The respondents argued that Section 28A covered High Court judgments, while the Union of India contended that the statutory scheme restricted it to court awards under Chapter III. The Supreme Court held that Section 28A specifically refers to Chapter III and that Section 3(d) defines 'court' as a principal civil court of original jurisdiction or a court of special judicial officer, which did not include the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 54, which falls in Chapter VIII. Relying on Babu Ram v. State of U.P., the Court concluded that the application for redetermination after a High Court judgment was not maintainable. The Court also rejected the respondents' arguments based on estoppel, enforcement proceedings, and laches, holding that the Collector's order under Section 28A was non est and devoid of jurisdiction, and the Union of India was entitled to challenge it despite any undertaking or delay. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the High Court order and Section 28A award were set aside, and the appellants were held entitled to restitution of any amount withdrawn. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Redetermination of Compensation - Section 28A Applicability - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 28A, 3(d), 54, 26, 18 - Section 28A permits redetermination only on the basis of an award of the court under Section 26, not on a judgment of the High Court under Section 54, because Section 28A refers to Chapter III and Section 3(d) defines 'court' as principal civil court of original jurisdiction while Section 54 falls in Chapter VIII. Held that an application under Section 28A does not lie after a High Court judgment in appeal (No paragraph numbers in judgment).
B) Land Acquisition - Jurisdiction of Collector - Award Based on High Court Judgment - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 28A - The Collector's award under Section 28A based on a High Court judgment is non est and devoid of jurisdiction. Held that such award is set aside.
C) Writ Jurisdiction - Enforcement and Estoppel - Undertaking in Contempt Proceedings - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 28A - The Union of India was not estopped from challenging a non est award despite an undertaking to deposit amounts at pain of contempt, because payment does not validate a void order. Held that no estoppel arose.
D) Civil Procedure - Laches - Delay in Approaching Court - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 28A - Delay from 1992 to 1996 did not bar the Union of India's challenge because the respondents had already filed an SLP against the original order, so laches did not stand in the way. Held that laches were not a bar.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies to judgments of High Court under Section 54, and whether Union of India is barred by estoppel or laches from challenging the award.
Final Decision
The appeals were allowed. The order of the High Court and the award under Section 28A were set aside. The appellants were held entitled to restitution of the amount if it had already been withdrawn by the respondents. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Section 28A applies only to court award under Section 26
- not High Court judgment under Section 54
- 'court' under Section 3(d) means principal civil court of original jurisdiction
- Section 54 falls in Chapter VIII
- award non est
- restitution allowed
- laches not applicable.
Case Details
1996 LawText (SC) (04) 84
Civil Appeal No. ... of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19212 of 1994)
K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik
1996 SCC (4) 537, JT 1996 (5) 637, 1996 SCALE (4)445
Dr. Rajiv Dhawan (for respondent); Not mentioned for appellant
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal by Union of India against High Court's dismissal of writ petition challenging Collector's award under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Remedy Sought
Union of India sought to set aside the High Court order dated July 13, 1994 and the Collector's award under Section 28A dated February 28, 1989, and also sought restitution of amount if already withdrawn.
Filing Reason
The Collector awarded compensation under Section 28A based on the High Court judgment, but Union of India contended that Section 28A cannot be invoked after an appellate High Court judgment under Section 54, making the award void, and further resisted enforcement and contempt proceedings.
Previous Decisions
Land acquisition proceedings: Section 4(1) notification on 10-07-1979; award under Section 11 on 13-03-1981; compensation received without protest; reference under Section 18; court enhanced compensation under Section 26 on 06-11-1985; High Court further enhanced on 21-05-1987; application under Section 28A on 04-12-1987; Collector's award on 28-02-1989; writ petition dismissed by High Court on 13-07-1994; then appeal to Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies to a judgment of the High Court under Section 54, or only to an award of a court made on reference under Section 18.
Whether the Union of India is barred by estoppel, enforcement proceedings, or laches from challenging the Collector's award under Section 28A.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondents argued that Section 28A applies not only to an award by the court under Section 26 but also to a judgment made by the High Court under Section 54.
Respondents also contended that since the writ petition for enforcement was allowed and the Union of India's counsel undertook to deposit amounts at pain of contempt, the High Court order had become final and the Union of India cannot resist the award.
Respondents contended that there were laches on the part of the appellants from 1992 to 1996 and the Court should decline to interfere.
Union of India contended that the Collector's order under Section 28A was non est and devoid of jurisdiction, and the payment of amount did not disentitle it from assailing the award.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies only to an award of a court made on reference under Section 18 in Chapter III, not to a judgment of the High Court under Section 54, because Section 28A specifically refers to Chapter III, Section 3(d) defines 'court' as a principal civil court of original jurisdiction, and Section 54 falls under Chapter VIII. A Collector's award under Section 28A based on a High Court judgment is non est and void for lack of jurisdiction. Estoppel, undertaking, or laches do not bar the Union of India from challenging a void award.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 28A itself specifically refers to applicability of Chapter III; in other words, chapter III would be applicable to a reference made under Section 18 to the court.
The conclusion is inevitable that the application for redetermination of the compensation under Section 28A would not lie after the judgement of the High Court under Section 54 of the Act.
Since the order passed by the Collector under Section 28A is found to be non est, being devoid of jurisdiction, the payment of the amount, at pain of contempt, or even otherwise, does not disentitle the Union of India to assail the validity of the award.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court and award under Section 28A are set aside. The appellants are entitled to the restitution of the amount, if it is already withdrawn by the respondents.
Procedural History
Section 4(1) notification published on 10-07-1979; award under Section 11 made on 13-03-1981; compensation received without protest; reference under Section 18; court enhanced compensation under Section 26 on 06-11-1985; appeal to High Court; High Court enhanced compensation on 21-05-1987; application under Section 28A filed on 04-12-1987; Collector's award passed on 28-02-1989; writ petition dismissed by High Court on 13-07-1994; appeal to Supreme Court; leave granted; appeals allowed on 22-04-1996.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 4(1), 11, 18, 26, 28A, 54, 3(d)
