Case Note & Summary
The case arose from land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4(1) was published on January 3, 1980, acquiring 18 acres 7 cents of land belonging to the appellants. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on October 31, 1981, determining compensation at Rs 4,500 per acre, which the appellants accepted without protest. Other claimants who had protested sought a reference under Section 18, and the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 12,000 per acre by award and decree dated November 21, 1983. On appeal by the State and cross-objections by the claimants, the High Court by judgment and decree dated February 1, 1989, allowed the cross-objections and determined compensation at Rs 20,000 per acre. Relying on this appellate enhancement, the appellants filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act on May 16, 1989, seeking redetermination of compensation and additional benefits. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application on June 1, 1991. The appellants then filed a writ petition, and a Single Judge of the High Court directed redetermination under Section 28-A. However, in Writ Appeal No. 117 of 1993, the High Court by judgment dated August 20, 1993, held that the reference under Section 28-A was not maintainable. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether an application under Section 28-A could be based on a High Court appellate judgment enhancing compensation, or only on an award of the reference court under Section 18. The Supreme Court analysed Section 28-A, which provides that when a court allows compensation in excess of the Collector's award, persons interested in other land covered by the same notification who are aggrieved by the Collector's award may apply within three months from the date of the court's award for redetermination. The expression 'court' is defined in Section 3(d) as a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or a special judicial officer appointed by the Government. Thus, the court of original jurisdiction that receives a reference under Section 18 is the relevant court, and an appellate court judgment under Section 54 does not give a right or cause of action under Section 28-A. The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, which held that the words 'any such award' cannot bear the broad meaning of appellate orders of the High Court or Supreme Court, and on State of Punjab v. Raghubir Singh, which held that a reference under Section 28-A can be made only on the basis of an award of the Reference Court under Section 26 on a reference under Section 18 within limitation. The Court concluded that the High Court's appellate enhancement of compensation under Section 23(1) did not provide a right or cause of action for an application under Section 28-A. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, upholding the High Court's decision that the application was not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Redetermination of Compensation - Section 28-A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The foundation for an application under Section 28-A is the award of the court as defined in Section 3(d), which means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or a special judicial officer appointed to perform the functions of the court. By necessary implication, a judgment of an appellate court made under Section 54 of the Act does not give a right or cause of action to make an application under Section 28-A. Held that an application based on the High Court's appellate enhancement of compensation was not maintainable. B) Land Acquisition - Redetermination of Compensation - Section 28-A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The expression 'award of the court' in Section 28-A does not include appellate orders of the High Court or Supreme Court. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Raghubir Singh and State of Punjab v. Raghubir Singh to reiterate that a reference under Section 28-A can be made only on the basis of an award and decree of the Reference Court under Section 26 on a reference under Section 18 within the limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 28-A(1). Held that the High Court's enhancement of compensation under Section 23(1) did not provide a right or cause of action under Section 28-A, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be based on a judgment of an appellate court enhancing compensation, or only on an award of the reference court under Section 18
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not maintainable on the basis of a High Court appellate judgment enhancing compensation; only an award of the reference court under Section 18 qualifies.
Law Points
- Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 enables redetermination of compensation only on the basis of an award of the court of original jurisdiction under Section 18
- not on an appellate court judgment under Section 54
- definition of 'court' under Section 3(d) limits to principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or special judicial officer
- appellate orders do not give cause of action for Section 28-A application
