Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Bharatsing & Others - Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 21792 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16449 of 2016)
Decided On : 12-12-2017
Land Acquisition Collector - Course of action under Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 28A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the application of Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows for re-determination of compensation on the basis of the court's award. The court refers to various decisions and interpretations of Section 28A, emphasizing the need to await the final judgment and decree of the appellate forum before re-determining compensation. The judgment highlights the limitations on successive applications under Section 28A and the obligation of the Collector to keep the application pending till the appeal is disposed of.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought enhancement of compensation under Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award while the appeals on the relied on awards were pending. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that successive applications under Section 28A are not permissible. The appellants appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that while successive applications under Section 28A are generally not permissible, the Collector erred in deciding the application when the matter was pending in appeal. The Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to consider afresh the original Section 28A application and pass orders in light of the judgment of the High Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the permissibility of successive applications under Section 28A, the obligation of the Collector to await the final judgment and decree of the appellate forum before re-determining compensation, and the propriety of the Collector's decision on the application while the matter was pending in appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that while successive applications under Section 28A are generally not permissible, the Collector erred in deciding the application when the matter was pending in appeal. The Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to consider afresh the original Section 28A application and pass orders in light of the judgment of the High Court.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to consider afresh the Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 and pass orders in light of the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009. The order dated 25.10.2000 was set aside, and the amounts already paid were to be duly adjusted. The Collector was directed to pass orders within three months from the date of presentation of a copy of the judgment by the appellants, and the consequential benefits were to be disbursed within another one month. No order as to costs was made.
Key Points: - (!) The case concerns the course of action for a Land Acquisition Collector under Section 28A when the supplemental award is based on an award pending in appeal. - (!) Section 28A allows re-determination of compensation on the basis of an award of the Court if certain conditions are met. - (!) Generally, successive applications under Section 28A are not permissible, but the Collector should stay redetermination pending final decision of the appellate forum to avoid incongruity. - (!) The Collector erred by deciding a Section 28A application dated 25.10.2000 while related appeals were pending, and the appropriate action is to keep such applications pending and await final appellate judgment. - (!) The Court directed afresh consideration of the Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 in light of the High Court judgment dated 23.03.2009, with amounts already paid to be adjusted. - (!) The final benefit to claimants should arise only after the appellate forum's final decree, and fresh orders must be issued within a specified short timeframe. - (!) The requirement that applicants who accept or refuse final Court-ordered compensation be treated consistently with the final award and potential refunds of excess amounts. - (!) The principle that the final decree of the appellate court determines the basis for any redetermination to avoid divergent outcomes. - (!) The decision cites Babua Ram and Kendriya Karamchari Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti for guidance on pendency and applicability of Section 28A. - (!) No costs were awarded in the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
Leave granted.
2. What is the course to be adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), when the award based on which enhancement is sought is pending in appeal, is the issue arising for consideration in this case.
3. The Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 17.01.1974. The compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on 04.06.1977. The appellants did not pursue the matter further under Section 18 of the Act in Reference. However, other claimants of the lands covered by the same Section 4(1) Notification took up the matter further and the Reference Court allowed enhancement and fixed the land value at Rs.5,000/- per acre in the place of Rs.3,000/3,500 offered by the Land Acquisition Officer, as per the award dated 01.10.1992 in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Aurangabad. The appellants filed an application on 31.12.1992 under Section 28A of the Act seeking similar enhancement within the period of three months as required under Section 28A.
4. While the application under Section 28A of the Act was pending, the award under LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was challenged in appeals and there were also cross objections. The High Court disposed of these appeals by judgment dated 23.03.2009 granting compensation at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre.
5. During the pendency of the appeal, it is seen that the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award dated 25.10.2000 on the application filed by the appellants under Section 28A of the Act, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre, as awarded in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 referred to above.
6. On 27.05.2009, the appellants filed fresh applications under Section 28A for enhancement of compensation based on the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009. They also approached the High Court praying for the Writ of Mandamus. By the impugned order, the Writ Petition was dismissed holding that Section 28A of the Act permits only one application, and successive applications as and when further enhancement is made, are not permissible.
7. Thus aggrieved, the present appeal.
8. Section 28A of the Act which was inserted in 1984 reads as follows :-
“28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. – (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:
Provided that in computing 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.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.
(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.”
9. The nuances of Section 28A have been subject matter
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
