1994 JTR(SC) 1036
1994 AIR(SCW) 5182 ; 1995 AllLJ 152 ; 1995 2 ALT(SC) 32 ; 1994 3 CurCC(SC) 641 ; 1994 4 Scale 1137 ; 1995 2 SCC 766 ; 1994 Supp4 SCR 581
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UTTAR PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Limited
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh
DECIDED ON: October 19, 1994
The proper course for the LAO in determining compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is to keep the applications under Section 28-A(1) pending until the appeal filed against the award of the District Judge is disposed of by the High court, and then to take action as per Section 28-A(2).
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.28(a)
(A) The case centers on the application of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which governs the redistribution of compensation to claimants who received their initial awards without protest, following a subsequent enhancement of compensation for other claimants by a Civil Court under Section 18. Specifically, the court examined whether a Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) can finalize an award under Section 28-A(2) while an appeal filed by the State against the District Judge's award (which served as the basis for the enhancement) is still pending disposal in the High Court.
(B) The core legal principle established is that when the State has preferred an appeal against a District Judge's award under Section 26 of the Act, any applications made under Section 28-A(1) for increased compensation must be kept pending. The LAO should not determine compensation under Section 28-A(2) until the High Court delivers a final judgment on the underlying appeal to ensure the compensation is based on a final and conclusive determination.
Facts of the case:
Notifications under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were published for three villages. Some claimants accepted compensation without protest, while others sought references under Section 18. The District Judge enhanced the compensation for the latter group. The State appealed this enhancement in the High Court. Meanwhile, claimants who had accepted compensation without protest applied under Section 28-A(1), and the LAO subsequently passed awards under Section 28-A(2). The appellants challenged these awards in the High Court, which dismissed their petitions.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petitions. Relying on established precedent, the Court observed that the proper course of action for the LAO is to defer action on Section 28-A(1) applications until the State's appeal against the District Judge's award is resolved. The award passed by the Collector under Section 28-A(2) was deemed premature.
Issues:
Whether the Land Acquisition Officer is justified in determining compensation under Section 28-A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act while an appeal against the District Judge's award is still pending in the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the determination of compensation under Section 28-A(2) depends on the finality of the award passed by the District Judge, and such an award is subject to challenge by the State, the LAO must wait for the final judgment of the appellate court to avoid contradictory or incorrect compensation determinations.
Result:
Appeals allowed; High Court order set aside; award under Section 28-A(2) quashed; LAO directed to keep applications pending until disposal of the State's appeal.
(A) The case centers on the application of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which governs the redistribution of compensation to claimants who received their initial awards without protest, following a subsequent enhancement of compensation for other claimants by a Civil Court under Section 18. Specifically, the court examined whether a Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) can finalize an award under Section 28-A(2) while an appeal filed by the State against the District Judge's award (which served as the basis for the enhancement) is still pending disposal in the High Court.
(B) The core legal principle established is that when the State has preferred an appeal against a District Judge's award under Section 26 of the Act, any applications made under Section 28-A(1) for increased compensation must be kept pending. The LAO should not determine compensation under Section 28-A(2) until the High Court delivers a final judgment on the underlying appeal to ensure the compensation is based on a final and conclusive determination.
Facts of the case:
Notifications under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were published for three villages. Some claimants accepted compensation without protest, while others sought references under Section 18. The District Judge enhanced the compensation for the latter group. The State appealed this enhancement in the High Court. Meanwhile, claimants who had accepted compensation without protest applied under Section 28-A(1), and the LAO subsequently passed awards under Section 28-A(2). The appellants challenged these awards in the High Court, which dismissed their petitions.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petitions. Relying on established precedent, the Court observed that the proper course of action for the LAO is to defer action on Section 28-A(1) applications until the State's appeal against the District Judge's award is resolved. The award passed by the Collector under Section 28-A(2) was deemed premature.
Issues:
Whether the Land Acquisition Officer is justified in determining compensation under Section 28-A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act while an appeal against the District Judge's award is still pending in the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the determination of compensation under Section 28-A(2) depends on the finality of the award passed by the District Judge, and such an award is subject to challenge by the State, the LAO must wait for the final judgment of the appellate court to avoid contradictory or incorrect compensation determinations.
Result:
Appeals allowed; High Court order set aside; award under Section 28-A(2) quashed; LAO directed to keep applications pending until disposal of the State's appeal.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THESE appeals arise from the judgment of the High court of Allahabad dated 29/1/1992 made in WP No. 16908 of 1989 and batch. The only controversy in these cases is whether the Collector was right in determining the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. The notification under section 4 (2 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Act No. 1 of 1894, for short the Act, was published on 9/2/1962. The Collector passed the awards relating to three villages on different dates determining the compensation. Some of the claimants received the compensation without protest and some on protest. Those who received the compensation under protest sought for " and secured references under Section 18 to the Civil court. The Additional district Judge, Ghaziabad in his award and decree dated 23/5/1987 enhanced the compensation. The State filed FA No. 668 of 1987 which is pending disposal in the High court at Allahabad. The claimants who received the compensation without protest made applications under Section 28-A (1 of the Act. Following the award of the District court, the Land Acquisition officer passed the award under Section 28-A (2 of the Act. This was challenged by the appellants in the High court in the writ petitions which were dismissed. Thus these appeals by special leave.
( 3 ) THE entire controversy has been considered by this court in Babua Ram v. State of U. P. dated 4/10/1994 rendered in CA No. 563 of 1994 and batch and held that since an appeal has been preferred by the State against e the award of the District Judge made under Section 26 of the Act, the proper course open to the LAO, on an application made under Section 28-A (1 of the Act, would be to keep the applications under Section 28-A (1 pending till the appeal filed against the award of the District Judge is disposed of by the High court and then to take action as per Section 28-A (2 of the Act. Following the law laid down therein and subject to directions contained therein, we hold that the High court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions. Therefore, the order of the High court is set aside. The award of the Collector made under Section 28-A (2 is quashed. The Collector/lao is directed to keep the application filed under Section 28-A (1 of the Act pending till the disposal of the appeal. On receipt of the judgment from the High court or in an appeal by this court the LAO is directed to determine a the compensation based on the final judgment according to law.
( 4 ) THE appeals are accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without costs.