http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 3515 of 1997

PETITIONER:

The State of Tripura & Anr.

RESPONDENT:

Roopchand Das & Ors., Sudhir Debnath & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/2002

BENCH:

Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

RAJU, J.

These two appeals involve common and identical questions of

law and are dealt with together. In C.A.No. 3515 of 1997, the

challenge is to the judgment dated 21.1.97 of the Gauhati High Court,

Agartala Bench, made in Civil Rule No.12 of 1997, whereunder the

High Court, applying the earlier decision rendered in Civil Rule 10 of

1997, directed, while setting aside the order dated 18.9.96 of the

Land Acquisition Collector, the said Collector to consider the petitions

filed by the respondent-landowners under Section 28-A of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act’’) on merits

and in accordance with law, holding them to be within the period of

limitation stipulated therefor. The appeal in C.A. No.3516/1997 is

against the above noticed earlier decision in Civil Rule 10 of 1997

dated 21.1.97.

So far as C.A. No.3515 of 1997 is concerned, relying upon the

Reference Court’s Award dated 19.9.94 in case Nos. Misc. L.A.29/92

and 30/92, the respondents sought by a petition filed on 16.12.94 for

re-determination of the compensation for their lands invoking Section

28-A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector rejected the claim by

his order dated 18.9.96 on the ground that the same was not filed

within the stipulated period of three months inasmuch as, according

to the Collector, the period of limitation had to be calculated from

25.5.94, an earlier Award of the Reference Court in respect of the

lands covered by the same Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act

and not with reference to the latest or subsequent Awards of the

Reference Court. So far as the appeal in C.A. 3516 of 1997 is

concerned, the Land Acquisition Collector, was moved by the land-

owners for re-determination of compensation in respect of their lands

invoking Section 28-A of the Act, with reference to an award of the

Reference Court made on 5.5.94 in respect of cases Misc.L.A. 34-

36/1992 and on 8.6.94 in Misc. Cases Nos.40, 41, 45 & 46/1992.

The petition was filed on 1.8.94. But the Land Acquisition Collector

by his order dated 18.9.96, rejected the same as time-barred on the

view that in respect of the lands covered by the very same

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, there was an earlier Award

passed by the Reference Court on 21.12.93 itself in Misc. Case

Nos.37, 38, 39, 42, 43 and 44/1992 and that the period of limitation

has to be calculated from the earliest of the Awards, which in this

case, as per Collector, was on 21.12.93.

The fact that if the latest Awards are taken into account, the

claim made under Section 28-A of the Act is well within time, is not in

controversy and the Land Acquisition Collector himself noticed the

said aspect. But in view of his opinion that of the Awards by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 3

Reference Court when more than one passed on different dates are

available in respect of lands covered by the same Notification, for

purposes of computing the three months period stipulated in Section

28-A of the Act, the date of the earliest one would be relevant and not

the subsequent or latest, the claims came to be rejected. It was this

reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector that did not meet with the

approval of the High Court, in our view rightly too, in the light of the

decision of this Court in Union of India and Anr. vs. Pradeep

Kumari and Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 736].

Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side, who

reiterated the stand taken for the respective parties before the High

Court. This Court in the decision in Pradeep Kumari and Ors.

(supra) categorically held that "the right to make the application under

Section 28-A of