D. Krishna Veni & Anr Vs. State of Orissa
& Ors  INSC 75 (19 January 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkatachala N. (J)
1995 SCC (2) 734 JT 1995 (2) 512 1995 SCALE (1)683
Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 for short `the
Act' was published on August II, 1971 acquiring about 700 acres of land in Golabandha
Buxi Palli, Vikrampur in Ganjam Dist of Orissa State. By award dated October 18, 1976 the land Acquisition Officer
determined the market value. On reference under s. 1 8, the learned subordinate
Judge confirmed the award of the Collector at the rate of Rs.80/- per fruit
bearing tree and Rs. 60/- per non-fruit bearing tree as full value in addition
to the compensation to the land by his award and decree dated August 21, 1986.
The appellants did not carry the matter in appeal. When others filed the appeal
under s.54 of the Act, the High Court had enhanced the compensation to the
fruit bearing tree at Rs. 990/- and Rs.650/- for non-fruit bearing tree by its
judgment and decree dated December 12, 1989.
Thereafter, the appellants filed an application under s.28-A of the Land
Acquisition Act on May
23 1990 for redetermination.
The Land Acquisition Officer dismissed the application and thereafter the High
Court by its order dated February
8, 1993 confirmed the
same in O.J.C. No.965/92. Thus this appeal by special leave.
is contended that when the High Court awarded higher compensation by operation
of s.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act the appellants also are entitled to the
point is now squarely covered by two judgments of this Court in Scheduled
Castes Co-operative Land Own in Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors.reported
in AIR 1991 SC 738 and Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & 513 Anr. reported in JT 1994 (7) SC 377. Therefore,
the appellants having failed to avail of the remedy of appeal and having
already availed the remedy of reference under s.
they are not entitled to seek redetermination of the compensation on the basis
of award of the High Court granting enhanced compensation. Section 28-A would
apply to the claimants who received the compensation without protest and faced
with statutory bar of reference and would not apply to those who had already
availed the remedy of reference and got no benefit or lesser benefit there under.
the bar of resjudicata clearly would apply to the appellants. The application
under s.28A is, therefore, not maintainable. The Collector and the High Court
rightly refused to grant the amount on par with the judgment of the High Court.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.