Union of India & Anr Vs. Babu Singh
& Ors  INSC 781 (4 December 1995)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Paripoornan, K.S.(J)
1996 SCC (1) 477 1995 SCALE (7)347
O R D
view of the fact that Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, learned counsel took notice on behalf
of the proposed legal representatives of the deceased respondent Nos.1, 2 and
9, the relevancy to give the particulars as pointed out by the office, no
only question is whether reference under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 is maintainable to the land acquired under the Defence of India Act.
Initially, an extent of 1230.8 acres of land including the land of the
respondents situated in Bhatinda in Punjab State was requisitioned for the purpose
of defence of India. Obviously the acquisition was
under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property
Act, 1952. An arbitrator was appointed under Section 8  of the Act. The
arbitrator in his award dated 19th January, 1985 determined the amount of compensation. Subsequent thereto, a writ
petition seeking direction for reference under Section 28-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984, was filed in the High Court
by the respondents.
counsel appearing for the Union of India in the High Court had conceded as
mentioned in the impugned order that a reference could be made under Section
28-A and the award could be decided within two months from that date.
that order dated 29th
October, 1987 of the
High Court in the abovesaid writ petition, viz., W.P. No.2482/87, this appeal
by special leave has been filed.
learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India contended that Section
28-A has no application to the acquisition of the land under the Requisition
and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
find force in the contention. Shri Ujjagar Singh, learned senior counsel for
the respondents contended that since the counsel appearing for the Union of
India has conceded before the High Court, the State is bound by the concession
and that, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the High
Court. It is difficult to accept the contention.
a case of total lack of jurisdiction since Section 28- A of the Land
Acquisition Act has no application when the land is acquired under the
Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act. Therefore, wrong
concession made by the counsel does not bind the Union of India in that behalf.
appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and the
writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.