1995 JTR(SC) 122
1995 AIR(SC) 1436 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 2136 ; 1995 1 CCC(SC) 631 ; 1995 1 CurCC(SC) 631 ; 1995 2 JT 683 ; 1995 2 RRR 311 ; 1995 2 SCC 733 ; 1995 1 UJ 521 ; 1995 KHC 1381
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
G. Krishna Murthy and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa, Respondent.
The appellants were not entitled to the same benefit of higher compensation awarded by the High Court under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.28(a)
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provisions, specifically Section 4(1) governing the publication of acquisition notifications and Section 28-A addressing compensation re-determination, form the statutory framework for this case. The notification issued on August 11, 1971, acquired land in Golabandha Buxi Palli, Vikrampur, Ganjam District, Orissa, with the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and later confirmed by the Subordinate Judge and Collector. Subsequent appeals and revisions under Sections 54 and 28-A concerning compensation for trees were adjudicated by the High Court, which enhanced tree compensation before dismissing the application for redetermination. This sequence of proceedings under the Act culminated in the present special leave appeal.
(B) Key legal principles include the non-availability of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A to appellants once final orders have been passed, as such benefits are confined to original parties, and the finality of orders confirmed by higher courts through established procedures.
Facts of the case:
Notification of land acquisition was published in 1971; the award determined market value in 1974; the Collectors award was confirmed in 1985; the High Court enhanced tree compensation in 1992; an application for redetermination under Section 28-A was dismissed in 1993; the special leave appeal is now pending.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly enhanced compensation for trees; the application under Section 28-A is not maintainable; the prior judgments of this Court in SCLC Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India and Babua Ram v. State of U.P. govern the issue; the Collector and High Court were right to deny enhanced compensation.
Issues:
Whether an appellant is entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation awarded under Section 28-A when the original compensation has been finally determined and confirmed by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellants are not entitled to the enhanced compensation because Section 28-A benefits are available only to the original parties, and the finality of the High Courts order precludes revisitation of compensation on par with the earlier judgment of this Court.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provisions, specifically Section 4(1) governing the publication of acquisition notifications and Section 28-A addressing compensation re-determination, form the statutory framework for this case. The notification issued on August 11, 1971, acquired land in Golabandha Buxi Palli, Vikrampur, Ganjam District, Orissa, with the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and later confirmed by the Subordinate Judge and Collector. Subsequent appeals and revisions under Sections 54 and 28-A concerning compensation for trees were adjudicated by the High Court, which enhanced tree compensation before dismissing the application for redetermination. This sequence of proceedings under the Act culminated in the present special leave appeal.
(B) Key legal principles include the non-availability of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A to appellants once final orders have been passed, as such benefits are confined to original parties, and the finality of orders confirmed by higher courts through established procedures.
Facts of the case:
Notification of land acquisition was published in 1971; the award determined market value in 1974; the Collectors award was confirmed in 1985; the High Court enhanced tree compensation in 1992; an application for redetermination under Section 28-A was dismissed in 1993; the special leave appeal is now pending.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly enhanced compensation for trees; the application under Section 28-A is not maintainable; the prior judgments of this Court in SCLC Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India and Babua Ram v. State of U.P. govern the issue; the Collector and High Court were right to deny enhanced compensation.
Issues:
Whether an appellant is entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation awarded under Section 28-A when the original compensation has been finally determined and confirmed by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellants are not entitled to the enhanced compensation because Section 28-A benefits are available only to the original parties, and the finality of the High Courts order precludes revisitation of compensation on par with the earlier judgment of this Court.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on August 11, 1971 acquiring about 700 acres of land in Golabandha Buxi Palli, Vikrampur in Ganjam District of Orissa State. By his award dated June 22, 1974, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value. On reference under Section 18, the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the award of the Collector by his award and decree dated January 31, 1985. The appellant did not carry the matter in appeal. When others filed the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act before the High Court, the High Court enhanced the compensation to the fruit bearing trees at Rs. 990/- and Rs. 650/- for not fruit bearing trees by its judgment dated April 21, 1992. Thereafter the appellants filed the application under S. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on November 21, 1992 for redetermination. The Land Acquisition Officer dismissed the application and thereafter, the High Court by its order dated April 30, 1993 confirmed the same in O.J.C.No. 24/93. Thus this appeal by special leave.
3. It is contended that when the High Court awarded higher compensation by operation of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants also are entitled to the same benefit. The point is now squarely covered by two judgments of this Court in Scheduled Castes Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 730 (738) and Babua Ram v. State of U. P., reported in (1994) 7 JT (SC) 377. Therefore, the application under Sec. 28-A is not maintainable. The Collector and the High Court rightly refused to grant the amount on par with the judgment of this Court.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1436