Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JOSE ANTONIO CRUZ DOS R. RODRIGUESE
Vs.
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
Decided on November 13, 1995
Land Acquisition Act, 1984 –Section 4 (1), 11, 28-A, 18 – Petitioners contends that Notification was published and the award was made in the case of his clients determining compensation – Subsequently, successive awards for other lands acquired under the same notification were made, and another judgment and decree by the High Court in Appeal uniformly fixing the compensation at Yet another reference was decided by the Reference Court – Though he filed the application, in view of the decision of this Court in any one of the awards or each successive award including the judgment and decree of the High Court would give right and cause of action to the petitioner-claimant to make application under Section 28-A – So, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay – Views of the Land Acquisation Officer and the High Court are wrong in law –Held, Contention of the learned counsel is that any one of the successive awards including the Judgment and decree of the High Court would give right and cause of action to the petitioner to make an application therefore, there is no bar of limitation, Bench of two Judges of this Court in has held that the period of limitation begins to run when the award on a reference was first made by the Reference Court and the limitation of three months requires to be computed from the date of the first award and successive awards do not save the limitation if it has already expired by efflux of time – Same view was reiterated in another judgment – This view was subsequently overruled by a Bench of three judges – ORDER accordingly
The case involves a dispute concerning the calculation of compensation for land acquired under a government notification. The petitioner, represented by counsel, contends that the notification was published and an initial award was made determining compensation for a specific land parcel. Subsequently, multiple awards and judgments were issued for additional lands acquired under the same notification, with varying compensation amounts. The petitioner argues that these successive awards, including judgments and decrees from higher courts, establish a right and cause of action to file an application for re-determination of compensation under a specific legal provision, regardless of delays or limitations. The core issue revolves around whether the period of limitation for making such an application begins from the date of the first award or from subsequent awards, and whether successive awards can be considered as giving a new cause of action. The case also raises questions about the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions governing the limitation period for applications related to land acquisition compensation. The matter is considered significant enough to warrant a larger bench of five judges due to its broad implications across multiple cases.
( 1 ) SRI Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that Notification under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short, the Act) was published on 3-10-1969 and the award under Section 11 was made in the case of his clients on 2/08/1972 determining compensation under Section 23 (1) at Rs. 1. 25 per sq. mt. for plot No. 23 admeasuring 24721 sq. mts. Subsequently, successive awards for other lands acquired under the same notification were made, on 4/06/1985 at Rs. 5. 00 pler sq. mt. , on 14/10/1985 at Rs. 9. 00 per sq. mt. and another judgment and decree on 31/08/1987 by the High Court in Appeal No. 11/86 uniformly fixing the compensation at Rs. 5. 00 per sq. mt. Yet another reference under Section 18 was decided on 27/07/1989 by the Reference Court at Rs. 5. 00 per sq. mt. Though he filed the application on 13-5-1987, in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736 : (1995 AIR SCW 1834) any one of the awards or each successive award including the judgment and decree of the High Court would give right and cause of action to the petitioner-claimant to make application under Section 28-A. So, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay. The views of the Land Acquisation Officer and the High Court are wrong in law.
( 2 ) SECTION 28-A says that where in an award under this part, the Court allowed the aplplication under Section 18 and awarded higher compensation, notwithstanding that the claimant had not made an application under Section 18, he can make an application "within three months from the date of the award of the court" (emphasis supplied) requiring that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. The proviso prescribes the mode of computation of period of three months which says that :-
"the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded".
( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel is that any one of the successive awards including the Judgment and decree of the High Court would give right and cause of action to the petitioner to make an application under Section 28-A. therefore, there is no bar of limitation, A Bench of two Judges of this Court in Babu Ram v. State of U. P. , (1995) 2 SCC 689 : (1995 AIR SCW 65) has held that the period of limitation begins to run when the award on a reference under Section 18 was first made by the Reference Court and the limitation of three months requires to be computed from the date of the first award and successive awards do not save the limitation if it has already expired by efflux of time. The same view was reiterated in another judgment in Union of India v. Karnail Singh, (1995) 2 SCC 728. This view was subsequently overruled by a Bench of three judges.
( 4 ) IN view of the contention raised by Shri Mehta, the following questions are required to be considered :
1. Whether the award of the Court, i. e. , Civil Court made under Section 26 on reference under Section 18 would also include judgment and decree of the Appllate Court under Section 54?
2. Whether each successive awards or judgment and decree (if answer on question No. 1 is positive) would give cause of action to file application under Section 28-A; if so construed, does not such a construction violate the language used in Section 28-A; when the Parliament advisedly did not use such expressions?
( 5 ) THESE questions require examination by a larger Bench of five Judges as the interpretation of Section 28-A on the limitation of three months often arises in many a case throughout the country.
( 6 ) ISSUE notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks. Petitioner is permitted to take out notice by dasti service in addition.
( 7 ) WE direct the Registry to place the cases before Honble the Chief J
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
