Back
1999 Supreme(Del) 265
High Court Of Delhi
PARBHATI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 1432 of 1986
Decided On : 04/07/1999
Rajiv Aneja, RAKESH AGRWAL, SANJAY PODDAR, SUNIL SABHARVAL
A person who has availed of the remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not entitled to the benefit of Section 28-A of the Act.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 28-A - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - PERSONS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT - PERSONS WHO HAVE AVAILED REMEDY UNDER SECTION 18 - WHETHER ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 28-A - HELD, PERSONS WHO HAVE AVAILED REMEDY UNDER SECTION 18 ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 28-A.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a land owner, whose land was acquired by the government, filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) and was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per Bigha. He did not appeal the award to the High Court. Subsequently, the Additional District Judge, in a subsequent reference petition relating to the same village and notification, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per Bigha. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs. 6,000 per Bigha. The Collector rejected the application holding that the provisions of Section 28-A were not attracted since the petitioner had filed a reference petition under Section 18.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 28-A of the Act since he had already availed of the remedy under Section 18. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India and Babua Ram and others v. State of U.P. and another, which held that persons who had sought and secured a reference under Section 18 were not entitled to redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A.
Issues: Whether a person who has availed of the remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is entitled to the benefit of Section 28-A of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act were not attracted to persons who had already availed of the remedy under Section 18. The Court reasoned that the legislature had made a discriminatory policy between the poor and inarticulate as one class of person to whom the benefit of Section 28-A was to be extended and comparatively affluent who had taken advantage of the reference under Section 18 and the latter as a class to which the benefit of Section 28-A was not extended.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Collector's order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 28-A of the Act.
( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed to impugn the Order dated 17/3/1986 of the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as`the Act ). It was held that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act were attracted only if the interested person had not filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Since the petitioner filed a reference under that provision he was not entitled to the benefit of the judgment delivered by the Additional District Judge enhancing the compensation of other land-owners covered by the same notification.
( 2 ) THE facts as enumerated in the petition are that the petitioner is a resident of village Karkardooma, Shahdra-Delhi and is a cultivator by profession. Some lands including the lands of the petitioner were acquired by two different awards Nos. 54-A/70-71 and 1804 under the relevant provisions of the Act. In respect of the lands falling under Award No. 1804 compensation was passed to the extent of 60% share in favour of the petitioner by the Court of Shri G. R. Luthra, Additional District Judge, Delhi in LAC case No. 31/67 decided on 16/3/1970 in a reference petition under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. The land falling in the above Award were as follows:
S. NO. KHASRA No. Area Bigha - Bis 1. 2723/1212 2 -05 2. 2750/1805/1273/2 0 -12 3. 1067 10-16 4. 2746/1268 1 -15 5. 2748/1269 2 -05
( 3 ) THE Collector had assessed the compensation in respect of various categories of land at Rs. 1,000. 00 , Rs. 800. 00 , Rs. 600 and Rs. 400. 00 per Bigha. On a reference made under Section 18 of the Act the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,000. 00 per Bigha for all kinds of lands for which the petitioner was entitled to 60%. The petitioner did not take recourse to the remedy of appeal before this Court. In respect of award No. 54-A lands covered by the same were as follows:
S. NO. KHASRA No. Area Bigha - Bis 1. 1687/1287 3 -09 2. 5870/1419/2 1 -07 3. 5873/1420 15 -15 4. 1688/1278 0 -18 5. 3078/1303 Min. 2 -07 6. 3078/1303 4 -13 7. 3078/1303 2 -00
( 4 ) FOR the lands covered under this Award the Collector vide his order dated 7/1/1971 granted compensation at Rs. 1100. 00 , Rs. 750. 00 and Rs. 600. 00 per Bigha in respect of Block-A, Block-B and Block-C respectively which is the categorisation of the quality of lands. The other relevant facts as stated in the petition are referred to in paragraphs 12 and 13 which read as follows: 12. That most of the appeals relating to village Karkardooma for enhancement of compensation, were decided by this Hon ble Court. In 1979-80, compensation of Rs. 6000. 00 per bigha has been unilaterally given in respect of every piece of land in village Karkardooma. This rate of Rs. 6000. 00 per bigha towards compensation for the village Karkardooma has not been disturbed either by this Hon ble Court or by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 13. That in respect of some land in village Karkardooma, an appeal was filed in this Hon ble Court, the appeal being R. F. A. No. 26/82 and titled as "tulsi v. Union of India". The said appeal was dismissed by this Hon ble Court as having been barred by time. The matter was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 540/84, which was granted. The Supreme Court thereafter allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, condoned the delay and also, instead of remitting the matter back to this Hon ble Court to decide the R. F. A. on merits, the Hon ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 7/10/1985, allowed the appeal qua the rate of compensation also and directed for the payment of compensation @ Rs. 6000. 00 per bigha by observing that this is the rate which has been granted benefits under the Amendment Act, 1984, were also granted. True copy of the order dated 7/10/1985 of the Supreme Court is Annexed hereto as Annexure A. Similarly, in respect of another award No. 2210 pertaining to village
