Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by special leave filed by landowners against an order of the High Court of Orissa rejecting their application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings concerning about 700 acres of land in Golabandha Buxi Palli, Vikrampur, Ganjam District, Orissa, initiated by a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published on August 11, 1971. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on October 18, 1976 determining market value. On reference under Section 18, the Subordinate Judge by award and decree dated August 21, 1986 confirmed the Collector's award at the rate of Rs.80 per fruit bearing tree and Rs.60 per non-fruit bearing tree in addition to compensation for land. The appellants did not challenge that decree in appeal. Subsequently, other landowners filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act, and the High Court by judgment and decree dated December 12, 1989 enhanced compensation to Rs.990 per fruit bearing tree and Rs.650 per non-fruit bearing tree. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application under Section 28-A on May 23, 1990 seeking redetermination of compensation on the basis of the High Court's enhanced award. The Land Acquisition Officer dismissed the application, and the High Court by order dated February 8, 1993 in O.J.C. No.965/92 confirmed the dismissal. The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that when the High Court awarded higher compensation, by operation of Section 28-A they were equally entitled to the same benefit. The Court rejected this contention, relying on two earlier decisions: Scheduled Castes Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 738 and Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., JT 1994 (7) SC 377. The Court held that Section 28-A applies only to claimants who received compensation without protest and faced the statutory bar of reference; it does not apply to those who had already availed the remedy of reference and got no benefit or lesser benefit thereunder. The Court further held that the bar of res judicata clearly applied to the appellants. Consequently, the application under Section 28-A was held not maintainable, and the Collector and High Court were found to have rightly refused to grant the amount on par with the High Court judgment. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Redetermination of Compensation - Section 28-A Inapplicable to Claimants Who Availed Reference and Failed to Appeal - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 28-A, 18, 54 - Appellants received compensation at rates fixed by reference court but did not appeal while other landowners obtained higher compensation from High Court; they later sought redetermination under Section 28-A - Supreme Court held that Section 28-A applies only to claimants who received compensation without protest and faced statutory bar of reference, not to those who already availed remedy of reference and got no benefit or lesser benefit, and the bar of res judicata applied - Held that the application was not maintainable and appeal dismissed with no costs (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether appellants who had availed the remedy of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and failed to file an appeal were entitled to seek redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A based on the High Court's enhanced compensation awarded in appeals filed by other landowners
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; no costs. Application under Section 28-A held not maintainable; Collector and High Court rightly refused to grant amount on par with High Court judgment.
Law Points
- Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 applies only to claimants who received compensation without protest and faced statutory bar of reference
- not applicable to those who already availed remedy of reference under Section 18
- bar of res judicata applies to such claimants
- claimants who failed to avail appeal cannot seek redetermination based on High Court enhancement in other appeals
