Advocates:
C.M.NAYAR, K.N.BHATT, KAPIL SIBAL, Mukul Mudgal, S.SURI BABU, T.C.SHARMA

What is the effect of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on redetermination of compensation when a reference under S.18 is involved and a party did not seek court-ward enhancement earlier? What are the principles governing payment of deficit court-fee to obtain enhanced compensation in reference valued cases, and should such relief be granted when appellants had consciously restricted their claim or delayed proceedings? What is the court’s stance on exercising inherent jurisdiction under Ss. 149, 152, 153 read with S.151 of the CPC to rectify judgments for enhanced compensation in land acquisition matters, especially in light of Bhag Singh and Mewa Ram decisions?

Key Points: - The Full Bench held that allowing deficit court-fee payments to obtain enhanced compensation under S.151 would be undesirable and not to be encouraged (!) (!) (!) . - The Court analyzed S.28A (Act 68 of 1984) and held it does not apply to claimants who had already sought a reference under S.18 and appealed, restricting redetermination rights to those who did not seek such reference (!) . - The judgment discusses Bhag Singh and Bhag Singh-like reasoning that claimants should not be deprived of enhanced compensation due to technical court-fee issues, but applies only in the context of government expropriation and later clarifies position for present appellant-society (!) (!) . - The Court ultimately dismissed the petition and noted the possibility of ex gratia payment by the Government for the economically deprived sections, without creating a precedent for routine relief (!) (!) (!) . - The decision references proportional belting and enhanced awards in earlier High Court orders, including levels of compensation per acre and related solatium/interest, and clarifies limits of inherent jurisdiction to grant such relief after six years (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The core outcome is that the petition for additional compensation via appellate enhancement with late court-fee payment was rejected, with cautious observations about possible ex gratia relief by the Government (!) (!) .

What is the effect of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on redetermination of compensation when a reference under S.18 is involved and a party did not seek court-ward enhancement earlier?

What are the principles governing payment of deficit court-fee to obtain enhanced compensation in reference valued cases, and should such relief be granted when appellants had consciously restricted their claim or delayed proceedings?

What is the court’s stance on exercising inherent jurisdiction under Ss. 149, 152, 153 read with S.151 of the CPC to rectify judgments for enhanced compensation in land acquisition matters, especially in light of Bhag Singh and Mewa Ram decisions?