1994 (10) TMI 304 - SC - Indian Laws

Section 28-A beneficiaries cannot seek redetermination as non-aggrieved persons, Collector lacks referral power

SC ruled on validity of applications under Section 28-A for redetermination of compensation in land acquisition cases. Court held that beneficiaries are ... Seeking redetermination for higher compensation - Validity of applications u/s 28-A to awards made before and after the Amendment Act - Limitation period - Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - establishment of thermal power plant - term 'aggrieved persons' - HELD THAT:- We of the view that the beneficiary is not an aggrieved person and the Collector/L.A.O. has no power to make, at the instance of the beneficiary or the State, to make a reference under Sub- section (3) of Section 28-A read with Section 18 subject to local amendments as was done by Haryana and the Himachal Pradesh Legislatures. This factor may be an additional reason for the Collector to await the decision of the High Court or of this Court, when the award of the court under Section 26 was carried in appeal under Section 54 or the latter under Article 136. Pending decision, he should stay his hands and take up the matter only after the decision is rendered by the High Court or by this Court. Yet, in view of the local amendments to the Act like that made by Haryana Legislature, the State may seek reference under Section 28-A(3), since Section 18 gets attracted by operation of Sub-section (2) -A of Section 18 of Haryana local amendment. When the land was acquired for and on behalf of the State, it becomes also entitled to a reference under Section 28-A(3) and all the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall apply to such a reference. It is true that there arises an anomalous situation when an award is made under Section 28-A(2) the Collector may award compensation in excess of the amount given under Section 26, while the claimant was provided with remedy under Section 28(3) the beneficiary or the State are left with no remedy under the Act. However, the Collector being an authority under the Act, the award of the Collector made under Section 28A is not totally immune from jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, if required to be challenged by the State or the beneficiary, who have no other legal remedy in the matter. After becoming aware of introduction of Section 28-A, it would appear that several antedated applications under Section 18 to make use of the awards to be made thereon under Section 26 by the civil court to get the benefit of Section 28-A. Therefore, when application made under Section 28- A create a doubt that the award under Section 26 which forms the basis for such application had been secured on an antedated or fraudulent applicant purported to have been made under Section 18, it shall be open to the State to have the matter thoroughly examined by an officer of the status of the District Collector/Commissioner to find the truth and such officer on enquiry made with reference to the relevant records and finds that the applications under Section 28A(1) are genuine and was/were made within limitation or the award under Section 26 is found on genuine application under Section 18 made within limitation and he could cause applications properly made under Section 28A(1), so that such award under Section 26 of cause may become unavailable for supporting the application, made fraudulently or collusive made under Section 28A be closed. However, it has to be remembered by the Collector/L.A.O. deciding Section 28A application that the compensation for land given in the award under Section 26 or judgment in appeal should form the basis of re-determination of compensation for the applicants' land; the same amount of compensation need not be given where there are differences in nature and quality and situation of the comparable land. Our conclusion in each appeal/appeals on their facts, would be as under: In Babua Ram's case, though we hold that the appellants are persons aggrieved within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 28-A to avail the right under Section 28-A(1) yet the High Court is right in directing that the Collector/L.A.O ought to have awaited the decision of the High Court. After the receipt of the decision of the High Court, the Collector/L.A.O:, after issuing notice to the respondents and giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, should enquiry into (i) whether the application/applications was/were filed written application/applications satisfying the requisites of Section 28A and within limitation, and (ii) in case those findings recorded are in favour of the applicants, still the Collector should decide whether the applicants are persons interested in other lands covered by the same notification and the award made by the Collector under s. 11. He should, therefore, enquiry into and record findings in this behalf. In case, the Collector/L.A.O. records findings in favour of the claimants then the should consider whether enhancement of compensation can be made on the basis of the award under Section 26 by the civil court or High Court and redetermine the same in accordance with law. If he records findings in favour of the claimant/claimants, he shall make the award under Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A and follow the procedure under s-28-A and the relevant provisions in Part HI in that behalf. The order of the High Court is set aside and writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The appeals, therefore, are allowed subject to the above directions. In Goa, Daman & Diu Industrial Devi. Corporation and State appeals, though we uphold the order of the High Court in its finding that the respondents are persons aggrieved, it is not the end of the journey. The direction issued in the impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector/L.A.O. He should issue notice to the applicant in each petition and give reasonable opportunity of being heard in person/counsel. He should consider whether the written applications satisfy the requirements of Section 28A(1) and were, in fact, filed the written applications within the limitation. Before proceeding as above, he could satisfy himself whether the award under Section 26 relief upon in support of the application made under Section 28A, was not made on the basis of antedated or fraudulent application under Section 18 or the applications themselves find under Section 28A(1) are antedated or fraudulently brought on record to claim the benefit under Section 28A(1). In case the findings are in favour of the claimant/claimants, then it is not necessary that there should be a second application, since the application already filed for redetermination of the compensation after the earlier award and decree of the civil court under Section 26 is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 28-A(1). On the basis of the judgment and decree of. the High Court which has become final i.e. later one, the Collector/L.A.O. should re-determine the compensation taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances enumerated in Section 23 and Section 28-A(1) and other related provisions applicable to the facts. In Union of India and connected appeals, though the appellants are the persons interested in under Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A for the purpose of enabling them to adduce evidence in redetermination of the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer acted as an agent on behalf of the State as well as the beneficiary-Union of India. The appellant is bound by the offer made by the Collector/L.A.O. Therefore, the question of their accepting the award made under Section 28-A(2) does not arise. It cannot seek reference under Section 28-A(3) or under Section 18 of the Act. However, it would be open to the appellant to challenge the correctness of the award made under Section 28-A(2) in a writ petition under Article 226 and 227. However, in view of our finding that the Collector should await the final decision of the High Court or of this Court, the Collector/L.A.O. committed grievous error of law in proceeding to make an award under Section 28-A(2). He should have awaited the decision of the High court in the pending appeal. The order of the High Court and that of the Collector are set aside. The cases are remitted to the Collector to keep them back pending disposal of appeal by the High Court. In case the decree of the High Court granting compensation is in excess o the award of the Collector/L.A.O., under s. 11, then the Collector should enquire whether the application satisfy the requirements of Section 28A and whether the application had been properly made and within limitation. In case the finding/findings is/are in favour of the applicants, then he should redetermine the compensation on. the basis of the award under Section 26, and made the award under Section 28- A(2) and should follow the procedure prescribed in Part III. Therefore, the orders of the Collector and that of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in revisions are set aside and the Collector shall follow the procedure indicated hereinbefore and decree as per the law and the judgment. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. All appeals in this judgment are disposed of accordingly. Issues Involved:1. Validity of applications u/s 28-A for re-determination of compensation.2. Interpretation of the term 'aggrieved persons' u/s 28-A.3. Applicability of Section 28-A to awards made before and after the Amendment Act.4. Limitation period for applications u/s 28-A.5. Rights of beneficiaries to seek reference u/s 28-A(3).Summary:1. Validity of Applications u/s 28-A for Re-determination of Compensation:The appellants moved the Special Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) u/s 28-A for re-determination of compensation at par with another claimant, Krishna Kumar, whose compensation was enhanced by the Addl. District Judge. The L.A.O. rejected their applications on grounds that they were not 'aggrieved persons' and that the decree in favor of Krishna Kumar was pending appeal. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Aggrieved Persons' u/s 28-A:The Court held that 'persons aggrieved' u/s 28-A include those who received compensation without protest due to ignorance, poverty, or illiteracy and did not seek a reference u/s 18. This provision aims to benefit such individuals by allowing them to seek re-determination of compensation based on a court award to another claimant under the same notification. The Court emphasized that this interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to provide relief to poor and inarticulate landowners.3. Applicability of Section 28-A to Awards Made Before and After the Amendment Act:Section 28-A applies prospectively from the date the Amendment Act came into force (September 24, 1984). It does not apply to awards made under Section 26 before this date. However, if a reference under Section 18 was pending on September 24, 1984, and the court enhanced the compensation after this date, the affected persons could seek re-determination u/s 28-A.4. Limitation Period for Applications u/s 28-A:The limitation period for applications u/s 28-A is three months from the date of the court award under Section 26. The time taken to obtain a certified copy of the award is excluded from this period. The Court clarified that successive awards do not provide fresh causes of action; the limitation begins from the earliest award.5. Rights of Beneficiaries to Seek Reference u/s 28-A(3):The Court held that beneficiaries (e.g., local authorities or companies for whom the land is acquired) are not entitled to seek a reference u/s 28-A(3) as they are bound by the Collector's award. However, they can participate in the inquiry and adduce evidence. If dissatisfied with the award u/s 28-A(2), their remedy lies in challenging it through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.Conclusion:The Court remitted the matters to the respective Collectors/L.A.O.s to reconsider the applications u/s 28-A in light of the guidelines provided, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and addressing the concerns of aggrieved persons. The appeals were allowed with specific directions for further proceedings.