- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 19 October 1994
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, M. K. Mukherjee, S. C. Sen
- Result
- Appeals allowed.
Headnote
Land JC!cquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 18, 28-A (1) and (2), Land Acquisition-Compensation-Award by District Judge-Stage's appeaf-Pen-dency of-Application under Section 28-A ( 1) during-Held such application should be k~t pending till disposal of State's appeal.
For acquisition of certain lands the Collector passed awards deter-mining the compensation. Some of the claimants received compensation without protest and some on protest. On reference by the claimants of later category they were granted enhanced compensation against which State preferred wl'it petition before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the claimants of formercategory made an application under section 28-A (1). Following the award of the District Court the Land Ac-quisition Officer passed awards under section 29-A (2). Petitions challeng- •ing these aw;irds were dismissed by the High Court.
In ap~eals to this Court on the question whether the Collector was right in determining the compensation under section 28-A:
Allowi,ng the appeals and setting aside the orders of the High Court, this Court
HELi~ : In view of the law laid down in Babua Ram's case the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions. The award of the Collector made under section 28-A (2) is quashed and he is directed to keep the application filed under section 28-A (1) of the Act pending till the disposal of the appeal. He should determine the compensation based on the final judgm¢nt according to law. [581B-F]
Babua Ram and Ors. v.State of U.P., [1994] Suppl. 4SCR148, reled on. CIVILAPPELLA TEJURISDI CTIO N: Civil Appeal Nos. 8112-14/94etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.1992 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Writ Peto. Nos. 16908, 16910 and 16909 of 1989 respectively.
V.A. jlobde, U.N.R. Rao, G.L. Sanghi, C.S. Vaidyanathan, R. Venkatachal~pathi, U.a. Rana,RajivTyagi,Anand Prasad, Mohinder Rupal, Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalitha Kohli, S. Bala Krishnan, S. Prasad, SatendraJain, Satendra Jain, R.N. Keshwani, A. Maniarputharn and Ms. A;una Mathur, U.N. Kourd and Ashok Grover for the appearing parties
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Leave granted.
Thease appeals arise from the judgment of the High c;ourt of Allahabad dated 29.11.1992 made in W.P. No.16908/89 and batch. The only controversy in these cases is whether the Collector was right in determining the compen-sation under s. 28-A of the Act. The notification under s.4(2) of the Land Ac-quisition Act, 1894, Act No. 1 of 1894, for short 'the Act', was published on February 9, 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 s. 18 to the Civil Court. The Addi. District Judge, Ghaziabad in his award and decree dated May23, 1987 enhanced the compensation. The State filed F.A. No. 668of1987 which io pending disposal in the High Court at Al-lahabad. The claimants who received the compensation without protest made applications under s.28-A (1) of the Act. Following the award of the District Court, the land acquisition officer passed the award under s. 28-A (2) of the Act. This was challenged by the appellants in the High Court in the writ peti-tions which were dismissed. Thus these appeals by special leave.
The entfre controversy has been considered by this Court inBabua Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P. dated 4.10.1994 rendered in C.A. Nos. 563/94 and batch and held that since an appeal has been preferred by the State against the award of the Dist!. Judge made under s.26 of the Act, the proper course open to the L.A.0., on an application made under s.28-A(l) of the Act, would be to keep the applications under s.28-A(l) 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 s.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 was not right in dismissing the writ petitions. Collector made under s.28-A (2) is quashed. The Collector/L.A.O. is directed to keep the ap-plication filed udner s. 28-A (1) of the Act pending till the disposal ofthe ap-peal. On receipt of the judgment from the High Court or in an appeal by this Court the L.A.O. is direct to determine the compensation based on the final judgment according to law.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without costs.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.