Case Note & Summary
In this appeal by special leave, the Supreme Court considered whether a reference under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was maintainable in respect of land acquired under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The dispute arose from acquisition of an extent of 1230.8 acres of land in Bhatinda, Punjab, including land belonging to the respondents, which was requisitioned for the purpose of defence of India. The acquisition was under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, and an arbitrator appointed under Section 8(3) of that Act made an award dated 19 January 1985 determining compensation. Later, the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a direction for reference under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Act 68 of 1984. In the High Court, counsel appearing for the Union of India conceded that a reference could be made under Section 28-A and that the award could be decided within two months. The High Court, by order dated 29 October 1987 in W.P. No.2482/87, accepted this concession and directed accordingly. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. Delay was condoned and leave granted. The core legal issue was whether Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applied to acquisitions made under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The Supreme Court accepted the contention of the Union of India that Section 28-A had no application to such acquisitions. It observed that it was a case of total lack of jurisdiction, as the land had been acquired under the 1952 Act, not under the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents relied on the concession made by counsel for the Union of India, arguing that the State was bound by it. The Court rejected this argument, holding that a wrong concession made by counsel on a jurisdictional issue could not bind the Union of India. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The decision clarified that the beneficial provision of Section 28-A, which provides for redetermination of compensation on the basis of awards in similar cases, is not available in respect of acquisitions under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, and that consent or concession cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Applicability of Section 28-A - Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no application to acquisitions under Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking reference under Section 28-A for land acquired under Section 8 of the 1952 Act, based on a concession by counsel for Union of India - Held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because Section 28-A did not apply; the appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. B) Civil Procedure - Concession by Counsel - Concession on a jurisdictional issue does not bind the State - The respondents relied on the concession made by Union of India's counsel before the High Court - Held that a wrong concession by counsel cannot confer jurisdiction where there is total lack of jurisdiction; therefore, the Union of India was not bound by the concession.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a reference under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable in respect of land acquired under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; writ petition dismissed; no costs. The Supreme Court held that Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no application to acquisitions under Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The High Court order was without jurisdiction, and wrong concession by counsel did not bind the Union of India.
Law Points
- Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 has no application to acquisitions under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act
- 1952
- total lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by counsel's concession
- wrong concession on question of law does not bind the State
