IMPORTANT POINT
Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not applicable in a proceeding under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 28A-Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952-Sections 6, 7, 8 and 15-Whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act is applicable in a proceeding under 1952 Act-High Court holding in writ petition that it is not applicable-Appeals to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (Yes)-Whether writ petitions were maintainable? (Yes)-Whether delay or laches can be a ground to set aside High Court s order? (No)-Result-Appeals dismissed-Case law discussed.
       Held : The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are, ex-facie not applicable for determination of compensation under the 1952 Act. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the 1952 Act are, thus, not in para-materia. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, on the other hand, lays down the factors which are required to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation. The mode and manner in which the compensation payable for acquisition of land under the 1952 Act and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are, thus, distinct and different. We fail to see as to how the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act can be made applicable in relation to a proceeding under the 1952 Act. (Para 17)
       Held further : However, once it is held that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act is not applicable in relation to lands of the appellants the only question which survives for consideration is as to whether the appellants have any legal right to force the respondents herein to enter into a fresh agreement relying on or on the awards passed by the arbitrator in 1987. The answer to the said question, in our considered opinion, must be rendered in the negative. It has rightly been accepted at the bar that in the event a reference is made to an Arbitrator by the owner of the lands, Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, would not be applicable. (Paras 28 & 29)
       Held thereafter : Submission of Mr. Narasimha to the effect that the Collector himself having made an award by order dated 30th May, 1988 the Central Government could not have filed a writ petition, is stated to be rejected. The contention of the Central Government, respondent herein, in the writ petition was that as the provision of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act being not applicable, the Special Land Acquisition Collector acted illegally and without jurisdiction in reopening the matter and passing a supplementary award. Such a contention was raised on the basis of a decision of this Court. Furthermore, the Special Land Acquisition Collector is a creature of the statute, He, therefore, was bound to act within the four-corners thereof. If he has passed an order invoking a provision of law which was not applicable, he committed jurisdictional error and the order impugned before the High Court by the respondents was a nullity. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention of the appellants that the respondent was not a person aggrieved and thus could not have maintained the writ petition. It was submitted that the respondents having filed a writ petition after a period of eight years, the same ought not to have entertained. Primarily a question of delay and latches is a matter which is required to be considered by the writ court. Once the writ court has exercised its jurisdiction despite delay and latches on the part of the respondents, it is not for us at this stage to set aside the order of the High Court on that ground alone particularly when we find that the impugned judgment is legally sustainable. (Paras 40 & 41)
       Held finally : For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (Para 42)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-Leave granted.

2. Applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in a proceeding under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act ) is in question in these appeals, which arise out of judgments and orders passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 971 of 1999, C.W.P. No. 183 of 1994, L.P.A. No. 914 of 1999 and L.P.A. No. 42 of 2000.

3. The factual matrix of the matter may be adverted to from the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 533 of 2001. The lands of the appellants were requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1971 for establishment of Military cantonment in the year 1972. They were later on acquired in terms of Section 23(1) of the Defence of India Act. An award of compensation was pronounced on 6th March, 1975 in the following terms :-

"1. Area assessed

on flat Rs. 16,000/- per acre

2. Nahri/Chani Rs. 14,000/- ,,

3. Chali Mustan Rs. 10,800/- ,,

4. Banani Rs. 9,000/- ,,

5. Coir Mumkin/

Bajar Rs. 4,500/- ,,.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellants in relation to the amount of compensation awarded by the respondents herein for acquiring their properties entered into agreements in the prescribed form under the provisions of the 1952 Act, which was made operative for the residual matters flowing from the proceedings of acquisition of lands upto repeal of the Defence of India Act, 1971.

5. Questioning the non-inclusion of interest in the said award they filed a writ petition before the High Court which was marked as C.W.P. No.4983 of 1976 which were allowed. A special leave petition filed by the respondents herein before this Court marked as Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.74 of 1998 questioning the said order of the High Court was dismissed on 4th September, 1984. Another writ petition was filed by the Appellant claiming solatium before the High Court which was marked as C.W.P. No. 1813 of 1978 and the same was also allowed. It is, however, not in dispute that several other land owners did not accept the said award and made a reference which was referred to an arbitration of the Additional District Judge. By an award dated 20.11.1987 in the case of one Nihal Singh, the said Arbitrator awarded higher compensation together with solatium and interest. Compensation awarded to said Nihal Singh by the Arbitrator was at the following rates :-

"1. Land situated on either

side of National Highway

leading from Bhatinda to

Bana upto depth of 5000

mts. Rs. 16.80 sq.yd.

2. Land upto depth of 500

mts. The Municipal limits/ fencing of Contonment from boundry 3rd phase of Urban Estate Bhatinda Town. Rs. 16/- per sq.yd.

3. For the rest of acquired

land Rs. 8.50 per sq.yd.

6. The said Nihal Singh had also been paid solatium @ 30 and interest @ 9 per annum for one year after acquisition and thereafter @ 15 per annum till realisation.

7. The appellants herein having regard to the said award filed application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of compensation. It is not in dispute that a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Krishan Khosla (decd.) and others vs. Union of India and Another, [AIR 1975 Punjab & Haryana 74] had held that even where an acquisition is made under the Defence of India Act, provisions of Section 28A o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 110

IMPORTANT POINTSection 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not applicable in a proceeding under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.

Cases Referred (12)

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not applicable in a proceeding under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.