1996 JTR(SC) 699
1996 AIR(SC) 3275 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 2329 ; 1996 4 CLT(SC) 289 ; 1996 4 JT 328 ; 1996 PLJ 270 ; 1996 3 RCR(Civ) 381 ; 1996 3 Scale 669 ; 1996 5 SCC 164 ; 1996 3 SCR 1087 ; 1996 KHC 885 ; 1996 4 Supreme 571
1996(4) Supreme 571
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Hukam Chand & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7118 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3928 of 1994)
with
Civil Appeal No. 7119 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3929 of 1994)
Decided on 2-4-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
Having not availed of the remedy under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, claimant is not entitled to make an application under Seciton 28-A(i) of the Act to seek same benefit of enhanced compensation.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.18, S.28(a), S.26, S.54
A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sections 11, 18, 26, 28-A, and 54, together with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, frame this dispute over compensation enhancement postnotification. Section 11 empowers the Collector to award compensation, Section 18 provides for reference to a Civil Court for enhancement, Section 26 allows further enhancement of such awards, and Section 28-A grants a right to nonapplicant aggrieved persons to seek redetermination within three months when a Court enhances compensation under Section 26, provided the period excludes the time to obtain a certified copy. Article 14 ensures equality before law. The sequence of proceedingsfrom notification, Collectors award, reference under Section 18, enhancement under Section 26, missed High Court appeal under Section 54, and subsequent application under Section 28-Adefines the procedural matrix within which the Land Acquisition Officer and High Court evaluated the claim.
B) Core legal principles include: limitation periods under Section 28-A(1); exclusivity of remedies under Section 28-A when enhancement arises from Section 26 versus Section 54; nonapplicant entitlement only where compensation is enhanced by the reference Court under Section 26; waiver of further remedy by not pursuing Section 54; and equality under Article 14 does not override the statutory scheme.
Facts of the case:
The notification was published on 24.3.1971. The Collector passed an award on 10.7.1971. The appellants sought reference under Section 18, and compensation was enhanced under Section 26. The appellants did not appeal to the High Court under Section 54. Other claimants filed RFA No. 1326/78, and the High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.135 per sq. yd. Two years later, the appellants applied under Section 28-A, which was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer and later dismissed by the High Court on revision. The appellants contended discriminatory violation of Article 14.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the appellants, having not pursued Section 54, are not entitled to apply under Section 28-A, as the remedy is available only when enhancement is under Section 26 by the reference Court and not under Section 54. The refusal to grant enhanced compensation on par with other claimants was legally sound. The equality argument was neither new nor res integra, having been previously decided against similar appellants.
Issues:
Whether Section 28-A(1) applies to appellants who did not seek enhancement under Section 54 but whose coclaimants obtained enhancement under Section 26; whether nonapplicants are entitled to the same enhanced compensation after missing the Section 54 remedy; and whether the refusal violated Article 14.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 28-A(1) provides a limited right to nonapplicants to seek enhanced compensation only where the Court enhances compensation under Section 26, and this remedy is lost if the claimant fails to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 54; the appellants are not entitled to enhancement under Section 28-A, and equality under Article 14 does not override the statutory framework.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed with no costs awarded.
A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sections 11, 18, 26, 28-A, and 54, together with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, frame this dispute over compensation enhancement postnotification. Section 11 empowers the Collector to award compensation, Section 18 provides for reference to a Civil Court for enhancement, Section 26 allows further enhancement of such awards, and Section 28-A grants a right to nonapplicant aggrieved persons to seek redetermination within three months when a Court enhances compensation under Section 26, provided the period excludes the time to obtain a certified copy. Article 14 ensures equality before law. The sequence of proceedingsfrom notification, Collectors award, reference under Section 18, enhancement under Section 26, missed High Court appeal under Section 54, and subsequent application under Section 28-Adefines the procedural matrix within which the Land Acquisition Officer and High Court evaluated the claim.
B) Core legal principles include: limitation periods under Section 28-A(1); exclusivity of remedies under Section 28-A when enhancement arises from Section 26 versus Section 54; nonapplicant entitlement only where compensation is enhanced by the reference Court under Section 26; waiver of further remedy by not pursuing Section 54; and equality under Article 14 does not override the statutory scheme.
Facts of the case:
The notification was published on 24.3.1971. The Collector passed an award on 10.7.1971. The appellants sought reference under Section 18, and compensation was enhanced under Section 26. The appellants did not appeal to the High Court under Section 54. Other claimants filed RFA No. 1326/78, and the High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.135 per sq. yd. Two years later, the appellants applied under Section 28-A, which was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer and later dismissed by the High Court on revision. The appellants contended discriminatory violation of Article 14.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the appellants, having not pursued Section 54, are not entitled to apply under Section 28-A, as the remedy is available only when enhancement is under Section 26 by the reference Court and not under Section 54. The refusal to grant enhanced compensation on par with other claimants was legally sound. The equality argument was neither new nor res integra, having been previously decided against similar appellants.
Issues:
Whether Section 28-A(1) applies to appellants who did not seek enhancement under Section 54 but whose coclaimants obtained enhancement under Section 26; whether nonapplicants are entitled to the same enhanced compensation after missing the Section 54 remedy; and whether the refusal violated Article 14.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 28-A(1) provides a limited right to nonapplicants to seek enhanced compensation only where the Court enhances compensation under Section 26, and this remedy is lost if the claimant fails to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 54; the appellants are not entitled to enhancement under Section 28-A, and equality under Article 14 does not override the statutory framework.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2.Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ) was published on 24.3.1971. The Collector under Section 11 passed his award on July 10, 1971. Thereon, the appellant along with others sought and had reference to the Additional District Judge under Section 18. After further enhancement of the award under Section 26, the appellants had not carried the matter in appeal to the High Court under Section 54. Some other claimants filed RFA No. 1326/78 wherein the High Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.135/- per sq. yd. Subsequently, after two years, the appellant had filed applications under Section 28A to the Land Acquisition Officer who in his award in L.C. case No.51/91 by order dated May 10, 1993 dismissed the application. On revision filed by the appellants in C.R. No.2659/93, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by order dated September 21, 1993 dismissed the petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.
3. The only question is : whether the Land Acquisition Officer was right in refusing to award the compensation to the appellants @ Rs.135/- per sq.yd. pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in RFA No.1326/79. Section 28-A(1) of the Act reads thus:
"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 require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:
Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded."
4. A reading thereof clearly indicates that after making award under Section 11 by the Collector, if the claimant had not made a written application under Section 18 within limitation, but one of the claimants arising out of the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act, aggrieved against the award made on application and hold the reference under Section 18 and when the Civil Court has enhanced the compensation, persons who did not make the applications under Section 18 and received the compensation under Section 31 without protest, Section 28-A(1) gives him right to make a written application under Section 28-A(1) within three months from the date of the award made by the reference Court. Under its proviso, the time taken to obtain its certified copy from the date of making the application to the date of supplying the award shall be excluded. In other words, the aggrieved persons who had received the compensation without protest but did not avail of the remedy of reference under Section 18, if one of the claimants arising from the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act, had the benefit of enhanced compensation from the reference Court, the non-applicant has been empowered under Section 28-A(1) to avail the remedy under Section 28-A by an application made within three months from the date of the award of the reference Court to seek enhanced compensation. In this case, admittedly, the appellants have availed the remedy of reference under Section 18 and had the compensation enhanced. Thereafter, they did not pursue appellate remedy under Section 54 to the High Court for further enhanced compensation but some of the claimants pursued the appellate remedy and had further enhanced the compensation at Rs.135/- per sq. yd. Having not availed of the remedy under Section 54, the appellants are not entitled to make an application under Section 28-A(1) to seek the same benefit of the enhanced compensation. The remedy under Section 28-A(1) is available to only when the compensation was enhanced under Section 26 award and judgment in part III of the Act and the same is not available when it was enhanced under Section 54 of the Act. This Court in Scheduled Castes Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India1 had held that the claimants who availed the remedy under Section 18 are not entitled to additional amount under Section 28-A when the High Court enhanced the compensation. Similar view was also expressed in Babu Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.2 The appellants are, therefore, not entitled to make the applications under Section 28-A further enhancement. The Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court have rightly refused to grant the relief of enhanced compensation on par with other claimants. The further contention that the appellants are inviduously discriminated to the payment of same compensation on par with others violating the equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution is no longer res integra. This was concluded against the aggrieved persons by majority judgment of this Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala3 and Babu Ram s case (supra).
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
*******