Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, the acquiring body, filed two writ petitions challenging the maintainability of applications filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 (original claimants) under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for re-determination of compensation. The claimants' lands were acquired for the Khadakpurna Project. After the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award, the claimants filed applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act, seeking higher compensation. Subsequently, they also filed applications under Section 28-A for redetermination based on a higher award passed in respect of other lands from the same village. The acquiring body objected, arguing that since the claimants had already invoked Section 18, they were barred by the proviso to Section 28-A from seeking redetermination. The Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No.2) rejected the objection and proceeded to consider the applications on merits. The acquiring body then approached the High Court. The Court examined the language of Section 28-A and its proviso. It noted that the proviso states that no application for redetermination shall be entertained where the applicant had made an application to the Collector under Section 18. However, the Court interpreted that this proviso applies only to those claimants who had accepted the award without protest and received compensation, and not to those who had sought reference under Section 18. The Court reasoned that the main provision of Section 28-A is a beneficial provision intended to ensure equality of compensation for all landowners whose land is acquired under the same notification. The proviso cannot be construed to exclude the very class of persons who had sought reference under Section 18, as that would defeat the purpose of the section. The Court held that the applications under Section 28-A were maintainable and dismissed the writ petitions. The Court directed the respondent No.2 to decide the applications on merits in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Redetermination of Compensation - Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Maintainability of Application - The acquiring body challenged the maintainability of applications under Section 28-A on the ground that the claimants had earlier filed applications for reference under Section 18. The Court held that the proviso to Section 28-A only bars those claimants who had accepted the award and received compensation without protest, and does not bar those who had sought reference under Section 18. The applications were maintainable. (Paras 2, 5-7) B) Land Acquisition - Interpretation of Statutes - Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Proviso - The proviso to Section 28-A states that no application for redetermination shall be entertained where the applicant had made an application to the Collector under Section 18. The Court interpreted that this proviso applies only to claimants who had accepted the award unconditionally, not to those who had sought reference under Section 18. The Court relied on the principle that a proviso cannot be construed as excluding the main provision. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents No.3 and 4 (original claimants) were entitled for consideration of their applications filed before the respondent No.2 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for re-determination of amount of compensation, despite having earlier preferred applications for reference under Section 18 of the said Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the applications under Section 28-A were maintainable. The Court directed the respondent No.2 to decide the applications on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- maintainability of application for redetermination of compensation
- effect of filing reference under Section 18
- interpretation of proviso to Section 28-A
