Advocates:
B. KRISHNA PRASAD

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 9477 of 1994

PETITIONER:

UNION OF INDIA

RESPONDENT:

HANSOLI DEVI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/09/2002

BENCH:

G.B. PATTANAIK & M.B. SHAH & DORAISWAMY RAJU & S.N. VARIAVA & D.M.

DHARMADHIKARI

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

2002 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 324

with

C.A. Nos. 9520-22 of 1994, C.A. No. 9478 of 1994,

C.A. No. 9526-30 of 1994. C.A. Nos. 9523-25 of 2001,

SLP (C) No. 5385-86 of 2001, SLP (C) 5383-84 of 2001 C.A. No. 8748 of 1995

SLP (C) Nos. 22360-61 of 2001. and C.A. No. 3515 of 1997

with C.A. No. 3516 of 1997.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATTANAIK, J. In this bench of cases, the provision of Section 28-A of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] ,crop up

for consideration. Two learned Judges of this Court, in course of hearing

of Civil Appeal No. 9477 of 1994 (Union of India & Anr. v. Smt. Hansali

Devi and Ors.), Formulated two questions to be answered by a Larger Bench.

The said questions are:

"I. (a) Whether dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section

18 on the ground of delay amounts to " not filing an application" within

the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

(b) Whether a person whose application under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 is dismissed on the ground of delay or any other

technical ground is entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A

of the Land Acquisition Act?

2. Whether a person who has received the compensation without protest

pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and has not filed

an application seeking reference under Section 18 is" a person aggrieved"

within the meaning of Section 28-A?

According to the learned Judges, the three Judges Bench decision of this

Court in Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Redriguese and Anr. v. Land Acquisition

Collector and Anr., [1996] 6 SCC 746 requires reconsideration. At the

outset, it may be stated that the Constitution Bench in Pradip Chandra

Parija and Ors. v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and Ors., [2002] 1 SCC 1, held

that judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two learned

Judges should follow a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. But if

a Bench of two learned judges concludes that an earlier Judgment of three

learned Judges is so very incorrect that in no circumstances can it be

followed, the proper course for it to adopt is, to refer the matter before

it to a Bench of three Learned Judges setting out the reasons why it could

not agree with the earlier judgment and then the Bench of three learned

judges also comes to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of a Bench of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 6

three learned Judges is incorrect, then a reference could be made to a

Bench of five learned Judges. In view of the aforesaid Constitution Bench

decision, the very reference itself made by the two learned judges was

improper and we would have sent the matters to a Bench of three learned

judges for consideration. But since the questions involved are pending in

many cases in different High Court and certain doubts have arisen with

regard to the interpretation to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act,

we thought it appropriate to answer the two questions referred Section 28-A

of the Land Acquisition Act reads thus:

"28 A. 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 requi