1995 JTR(SC) 304
1995 AIR(SCW) 1842 ; 1995 2 CurCC(SC) 230 ; 1995 2 Scale 354 ; 1995 Supp2 SCC 679 ; 1995 2 SCR 377
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
STATE OF PUNJAB
Versus
RAGHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 3521 of 1995 in SLP (C) No. 12349 of 1994
Decided on 28-2-1995
Advocates appeared:
G.K. Bansal, Advocate, for the Petitioner;
R.K. Talwar and Goodwill Indeevar, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.28(a)
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provisions operative in this case are Section 28(a) read with Section 11, governing the award process, and Section 28-A, which permits an application for reference to the civil court only within a specified limitation period and on the basis of a judgment of the Reference Court. The notification under Section 4(1) was published in 1981, and the Collector made an award under Section 11 in 1983. The High Court enhanced compensation in a 1990 decree, and an application under Section 28-A was dismissed in 1992. The present appeal challenges the High Courts allowance of revision to re-determine compensation.
(B) The key legal principle is that an application under Section 28-A for reference lies only within the prescribed limitation and not at any later stage, even after an enhancement by a High Court decree. The doctrine of limitation is strict, and the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 does not apply if the application is not filed within the stipulated period. The Collectors dismissal of the belated application was not erroneous.
Facts of the case:
A notification under Section 4(1) was published on 4-2-1981 for a public purpose. The Collector made an award under Section 11 on 22-12-1983. The respondents did not seek a reference under Section 18. The High Court enhanced compensation to Rs 1,75,000 per acre in a 10-9-1990 decree. On 2-1-1991, the respondents filed an application under Section 28-A seeking reference, which the Collector dismissed on 22-1-1992. The High Court allowed a revision on 14-8-1992 to re-determine compensation based on its earlier judgment.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the application under Section 28-A was not filed within the limitation prescribed by the proviso and was not filed immediately after the District Courts award. Consequently, the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 had no application, and the High Court erred in law by allowing the revision.
Issues:
Whether an application under Section 28-A for reference to the civil court is maintainable after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period and after a High Court decree enhancing compensation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The application for reference under Section 28-A is barred by limitation and must be filed within the prescribed period. The High Courts order allowing revision to re-determine compensation was erroneous, as it ignored the strict limitation under the Amendment Act.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court order dated 14-8-1992 in CR No. 88 is set aside without costs, and the matter stands disposed of in accordance with the settled law on limitation.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provisions operative in this case are Section 28(a) read with Section 11, governing the award process, and Section 28-A, which permits an application for reference to the civil court only within a specified limitation period and on the basis of a judgment of the Reference Court. The notification under Section 4(1) was published in 1981, and the Collector made an award under Section 11 in 1983. The High Court enhanced compensation in a 1990 decree, and an application under Section 28-A was dismissed in 1992. The present appeal challenges the High Courts allowance of revision to re-determine compensation.
(B) The key legal principle is that an application under Section 28-A for reference lies only within the prescribed limitation and not at any later stage, even after an enhancement by a High Court decree. The doctrine of limitation is strict, and the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 does not apply if the application is not filed within the stipulated period. The Collectors dismissal of the belated application was not erroneous.
Facts of the case:
A notification under Section 4(1) was published on 4-2-1981 for a public purpose. The Collector made an award under Section 11 on 22-12-1983. The respondents did not seek a reference under Section 18. The High Court enhanced compensation to Rs 1,75,000 per acre in a 10-9-1990 decree. On 2-1-1991, the respondents filed an application under Section 28-A seeking reference, which the Collector dismissed on 22-1-1992. The High Court allowed a revision on 14-8-1992 to re-determine compensation based on its earlier judgment.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the application under Section 28-A was not filed within the limitation prescribed by the proviso and was not filed immediately after the District Courts award. Consequently, the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 had no application, and the High Court erred in law by allowing the revision.
Issues:
Whether an application under Section 28-A for reference to the civil court is maintainable after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period and after a High Court decree enhancing compensation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The application for reference under Section 28-A is barred by limitation and must be filed within the prescribed period. The High Courts order allowing revision to re-determine compensation was erroneous, as it ignored the strict limitation under the Amendment Act.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court order dated 14-8-1992 in CR No. 88 is set aside without costs, and the matter stands disposed of in accordance with the settled law on limitation.
G.K.BANSAL, GUDWILL INDIVER, R.K.Talwar
ORDER
1. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 4-2-1981 for public purpose. The Collector made an award under Section 11 on 22-12-1983. The respondents did not seek for any reference under Section 18. The High Court in the appeal filed by one of the claimants in the same notification by the judgment and decree dated 10-9-1990 enhanced the compensation at Rs 1,75,000 per acre. Thereon the respondents filed the application on 2-1-1991 under Section 28-A seeking reference to the civil court on the basis of the judgment of the High Court. The Collector dismissed the application on 22-1-1992. Thereon the respondents filed revision in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order dated 14-8-1992 allowed and directed re determination of the compensation, on the basis of the judgment of the High Court dated 12-9-1990.
2. The entire controversy is now covered by judgment of this Court in Babua Ram v. State of U.P. (1995) 2 SCC 689 : JT (1994) 7 SC 377. In view of the above judgment the necessary conclusion is that the application for reference does not lie. The reference could be made only on the basis of the judgment of the Reference Court but within the limitation prescribed under the proviso of Section 28-A(l). In this case neither the application was filed within limitation nor immediately after the award of the District Court. Under these circumstances the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 cannot be applied and the High Court clearly committed error of law in allowing the revision. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court in CR No. 88 of 1992 dated 14-8-1992 is set aside but in the circumstances without costs.
For Citation: 1995 Supp (2) SCC 679