IMPORTANT POINT
Section 28 of the LA Act is not meant for affluent people.

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28-A – Petitioner’s land, 11 Acres 32 Guntas, acquired – Shows he is a man of means – Not filing application u/s 18(1) – Filing petition u/s 28 meant for poor, illiterate, ignorant and inarticulate people – Petitioner not falling under specified category. (Para 6)
       JT 2009 (13) SC 388 – Relied upon
       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – First appeal filed after delay of 1717 days, condoned by the court – Amount claimed in first appeal 24000 per acre – Decreed – Second appeal not making any specific demand – Exemplar cited in second appeal for the first time – Second appeal dismissed – In SLP attempt being made to create impression that High Court did not enhance compensation on technical ground of deficit in court fee – SLP also filed after delay of 154 days – Petitioner not entitled to any relief – Constitution of India – Article 136. (Para 16, 18)
       (2009) 14 SCC 338; AIR 1983 SC 43; AIR 2000 SC 3737 – Relied upon
       AIR 2009 SC 3012 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case;
       This case involves issues of compensation in land acquisition proceedings.
       Finding of the Court:
       Appeal has no merit.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :

1. Delay condoned.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that:

A. A huge area of land was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the `Act’) on 30.5.1984 including the petitioner’s land measuring 11 Acres 32 Guntas at Gobbur (K) Village in District Gulbarga for the purpose of construction of a tank. The possession of the said land has been taken by the respondent authorities on 23.6.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector made an Award under Section 11 of the Act fixing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 3800/-per Acre.

B. One LAC Case No. 500 of 1993 filed by another person was decided by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act on 28.9.1994. While placing reliance on the same, the petitioner filed application under Section 28-A of the Act. The said application was allowed fixing the market value of the dry land at the rate of Rs.10000/-per Acre. Petitioner preferred a further reference against that order claiming Rs.45000/-per Acre for dry land and Rs.75000/- per Acre for irrigated lands. The said reference was decided vide order dated 27.9.2003 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs. 15000/- per Acre for dry land and Rs.21500/- per Acre for irrigated land.

C. Aggrieved from the said reference award, petitioner preferred LAC Appeal No. 64 of 2008 before the District Judge, Gulbarga, seeking enhancement of compensation assessing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.24000/- per Acre which stood allowed vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009.

D. Petitioner filed MSA No. 510 of 2010 against the said judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009 before High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.9.2011.

Hence, this petition.

3. Ms. Kiran Suri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that courts cannot defeat the claim based on substantial justice on mere technicalities. Learned counsel would submit that when technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, the latter must prevail; in case petitioner was entitled for a higher compensation, awarding a lesser amount of compensation, tantamounts to expropriation of the property in violation of mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has been deprived the higher compensation as he could not afford to pay the court fees though he was entitled for higher compensation claimed by him.

4. Record of the case reveals that petitioner’s land measuring 11 Acres 32 Guntas had been acquired though there is nothing on record to show as to whether petitioner had some more land. But the area of land acquired makes it clear that petitioner was a man of means. We fail to understand, in case, he did not file a reference under Section 18 of the Act, under what circumstances his application under Section 28-A of the Act could be entertained.

5. This Court in State of Orissa & Ors. v. Chitrasen Bhoi, JT 2009 (13) SC 388, considered this aspect and held :

“The scope of provisions of Section 28-A of the Act was considered by this Court in Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 45, and the Court placed emphasis particularly on para 2 (ix) of the object and reasons of the Amendment Act, 1987 which provided for a special provision for inarticulate and poor people to apply for redetermination of the compensation amount on the basis of the court award in a land acquisition reference filed by comparatively affluent land owner. The Court observed as under:

Section 28-A in terms does not apply to the case of the petitioners..... They do not belong to that class of society for whose benefit the provision is intended and meant, i.e. inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

This Court approved and reiterated the law laid down in Mewa Ram (Supra) in Scheduled Cas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 463

IMPORTANT POINTSection 28 of the LA Act is not meant for affluent people.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 28 of the LA Act is not meant for affluent people.