Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Rajiv Jain & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1423, 1436 & 1424 of 2013
Decided On : 03-08-2017
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Compensation - Reference for Enhancement - Dismissal of Appeals
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought reference for enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court found that the appellants had the opportunity to receive compensation under protest before the Land Acquisition Officer and to seek reference for its enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeals, stating that the appellants themselves were responsible for not receiving compensation and that they could ask the reference court for disbursement if the award had been passed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to seek reference for enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the appellants had the opportunity to receive compensation under protest and seek reference for enhancement, they were responsible for not receiving compensation and could ask the reference court for disbursement if the award had been passed.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, leaving the question of law open and making it clear that the order should not be treated as precedent in any other case.
ORDER :
IN CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1423 & 142 4 OF 2013
No ground is made out so as to interfere with the impugned judgment, since the Award has been passed, possession has been taken and the development has taken place.
2. The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the 2013 Act') also does not come to rescue of the appellant. Since the reference had been sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is open to the appellants to pursue the same. Decision of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. [2014(3) SCC 183] is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. In the instant cases, it was open to the appellants to receive the compensation under the protest before Land Acquisition Officer and to seek the reference for its enhancement. Since the appellants have sought the reference for enhancement of compensation, in case they have not received compensation they themselves are responsible for it. It is open to them to ask reference court for disbursement in case award has been passed.
4. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1436 OF 2013
5. No ground for interference with the impugned order is made out. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is dismissed leaving the question of law open. It is made clear that order not be treated as precedent in any other case.
AI
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
