SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(All) 2657

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
BINDESHWARI PRASAD AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Land Acquisition No. 130 of 2013, decided on 22nd November, 2013)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Dr. Ram Surat Pande for the Petitioners; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 28-A—Application—Re-determination of compensation—Filed within 90 days against subsequent award and not against first award which was passed on earlier date—Wrongly rejected on ground that it was barred by limitation—Limitation for re-determination of subsequent award will start running from date it was passed—Order of rejection—Quashed and direction issued for disposal of application expeditiously on merits, preferably within three months. [Paras 2 to 4]

       Result; Petition Allowed.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—The application submitted by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. From the impugned order of the Collector, Gonda dated 30 September 2013, it appears that there was a first award dated 6 May 2010 and a subsequent award dated 28 February 2011. The Collector was of the view that there was no justification for the petitioners not to submit an application under Section 28-A of the Act 1894 within 90 days of the first award.

2. It is not in dispute that the application submitted on 13 May 2011 was within 90 days of the subsequent award. The position in law is governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari and others, AIR 1995 SC 2259, wherein it has been held as follows :

“Since the cause of action for moving the application for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A arises from the award on the basis of which re-determination of compensation is sought, the principle that “once the limitation begins to run, it runs in its full course until its running is interdicted by an order of the Court” can have no application because the limitation for moving the application under Section 28-A will begin to run only from the date of the award on the basis of which re-determination of compensation is sought.”

3. In view of the clear position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the Collector, Gonda was in error in rejecting the application under Section 28-A on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Undoubtedly, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 28-A is mandatory but, as the Supreme Court has noted, where an application for enhancement is made on the basis of a particular award, there was no reason to reject it on the ground that it was not made within 90 days of the first award.

4. In the circumstances, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 30 September 2013 and restore Case No. 58/2012-13 to the file of the Collector, Gonda who shall proceed to dispose of the application under Section 28-A of the Act 1894 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is produced on record.

5.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top