V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs.
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. & ANR. [2010] INSC 826 (5 October 2010)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7655 OF 2004 V.
Ramakrishna Rao ...Appellant Versus The Singareni Collieries Company
...Respondents Ltd. and another
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1.
The
only question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against the
judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court is whether the
application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for making a reference to the Court was
maintainable and the High Court committed an error by quashing the proceedings
of O.P. No.31 of 2000 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli
(hereinafter referred to as `the Reference Court').
2.
The
land of the appellant (20 acres 11 guntas) was acquired by the State Government
in 1985 as a part of acquisition of large tract of land for mining operations
to be undertaken by respondent No.1 - Singareni Collieries Company Pvt. Ltd. By
an award dated 3.8.1987, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the
acquired land at Rs.7,000/- per acre for dry land under cultivation (category
I) and Rs.6,000/- per acre for dry land which was kept fallow (category II).
3.
On
a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court, after
considering the evidence produced by the parties fixed market value of category
I land at Rs.10,000/- per acre and of category II land at Rs.9,500/- per acre.
This did not satisfy the land owners, who filed Appeal Suit No.978 of 1990 in
the High Court, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Reference
Court for re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to the land
owners. The Reference Court reconsidered the matter and passed order dated
17.7.2000, whereby it fixed market value of the two categories of land at
Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per acre respectively. The appeals filed by the
parties against the fresh determination of market value by the Reference Court
are pending before the High Court.
4.
The
appellant who had not invoked Section 18 of the Act filed an application under
Section 28A(1) for payment of enhanced compensation at par with other land
owners, at whose instance reference was made by the Collector. By an order
dated 31.12.1990, the Land Acquisition Officer held that the appellant is
entitled to receive compensation at par with other land owners. On the same
day, the appellant filed an application under Section 28A(3) of the Act for
making a reference to the Court for fixing the fair market value of the
acquired land by asserting that he was accepting the amount of compensation
under protest. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to Collector,
Karimnagar, who accorded permission for making a reference to the Court.
Thereupon, the Land Acquisition Officer sent communication dated 2.6.2000 to
the Reference Court for fixing the fair market value of the appellant's land.
5.
Respondent
No.1 challenged the aforesaid communication in Writ Petition No.23600/2000,
which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with an observation that the
Civil Court is already seized with the matter in O.P. No. 31/2000 and the
petitioner can agitate all the points including the one relating to
maintainability of reference made under Section 28A(3). The Division Bench
allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1, set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge and held that a person who gets benefit 4 of higher
compensation under Section 28A(1) cannot file an application under Section
28A(3).
6.
Shri
P.S. Narsimha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that
the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the view expressed by
the Division Bench on the maintainability of the application filed by the
appellant under Section 28A(3) is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the ratio
of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v.
1.
Pradeep
Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736, Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273, Union
of India v. Munshi Ram (Dead) by Lrs. (2006) 4 SCC 538 and Kendriya Karamchari
Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti Limited, Noida v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 1
SCC 754.
7.
Shri
Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents supported the
impugned judgment and argued that Section 28A(3) can be invoked only if the
amount paid to the land owner under Section 28A(1) is less than the amount
awarded by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act and not otherwise.
Learned senior counsel pointed out that determination of market value made by
the Reference Court vide order dated 17.7.2000 is under challenge before the
High Court and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get higher
compensation. Learned senior counsel emphasized that once the amount of
compensation is re- 5 determined under Section 28A(1), the defaulting land
owner cannot apply for fixation of the fair market value of the land by filing
application under Section 28A(3) and the Division Bench of the High Court did
not commit any error by quashing the proceedings pending before the civil
court.
8.
We
have considered the respective submissions. Section 28A of the Act reads as
under:
"28A.
Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the
Court.-- (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the
applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the
Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land
covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are
also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had
not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written
application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of
the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to him may be
re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:
Provided that in
computing the period of three months within which an application to the
Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was
pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be
excluded.
(2) The Collector
shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry
after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable
opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of
compensation payable to the applicants.
(3) Any person who
has not accepted the award under sub- section (2) may, by written application
to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the
6 determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so
far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under
Section 18."
9.
The
above reproduced provision represents the Legislature's determination to ensure
that the goal of equality enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution and
Articles 38, 39 and 46 thereof is translated into reality, at least in the
matter of payment of compensation to those who are deprived of their land for
the benefit of the State, its instrumentalities/agencies and even private
persons. Section 28A also represents statutory embodiment of the doctrine of
equality in matters relating to the acquisition of land. The Act which was
enacted in 1894 and was amended after 90 years has the potential of depriving a
large segment of the society i.e. the `agriculturist' of their only source of
livelihood. The scheme of Section 28A provide some solace to this segment of
the society by ensuring that such of the land owners whose land was acquired
under the same notification but who could not, on account of poverty, ignorance
and other disabilities join others in seeking reference under Section 18 get an
opportunity to claim compensation at par with others. This section is aimed at
removing inequality in the payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of
land under the same notification. To put it differently, this section gives a
chance to the land owner, who may not have applied under Section 18 for
determination of market value by the Court to seek re-determination of the 7
amount of compensation, if any other similarly situated land owner succeeds in
persuading the Reference Court to fix higher market value of the acquired land.
Therefore, Section 28A has to be interpreted in a manner which would advance
the policy of legislation to give an opportunity to the land owner who may
have, due to variety of reasons not been able to move the Collector for making
reference under Section 18 of the Act to get higher compensation if market
value is revised by the Reference Court at the instance of other land owners,
whose land is acquired under the same notification. Of course, this opportunity
can be availed by filing application within the prescribed period. In Union of
India v. Pradeep Kumari (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that
Section 28A is in the nature of a beneficent provision intended to remove
inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and poor land owners, who are
not able to take advantage of the right of reference to the Civil Court under
Section 18 of the Act and such a provision should be interpreted in a manner
which advances the policy of legislation.
10.
In
Union of India v. Munshi Ram (supra), a two-Judge Bench considered the meaning
of the word `re-determination' appearing in Section 28A and held that
compensation payable to the applicant under Section 28A should be at par with
what is finally payable to those who sought reference under Section 18 of the
Act and if the compensation payable to the latter 8 category is reduced by the
superior court, the one who gets higher compensation under Section 28A may be
directed to refund the excess amount. What was emphasized by the two-Judge
Bench was that re- determination of the amount of compensation under Section
28A must be commensurate with the compensation payable to those who had sought
reference under Section 18 and if the higher court reduces the amount of
compensation payable in terms of the order of the Reference Court, then those
making application under Section 28A must be asked to refund the excess amount.
A somewhat similar view was expressed in Kendriya Karamchari Sehkari Grah
Nirman Samiti Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) in the following words:
"It is true that
once the Reference Court decides the matter and enhances the compensation, a
person who is otherwise eligible to similar relief and who has not sought
reference, may apply under Section 28-A of the Act. If the conditions for
application of the said provision have been complied with, such person would be
entitled to the same relief which has been granted to other persons seeking
reference and getting enhanced compensation. But, it is equally true that if
the Reference Court decides the matter and the State or acquiring body
challenges such enhanced amount of compensation and the matter is pending
either before the High Court or before this Court (the Supreme Court), the
Collector would be within his power or authority to keep the application under Section
28-A of the Act pending till the matter is finally decided by the High Court or
the Supreme Court as the case may be. The reason being that the decision
rendered by the Reference Court enhancing compensation has not attained
"finality" and is sub judice before a superior court."
11.
If
sub-section (3) of Section 28A is interpreted keeping in view the object sought
to be achieved by enacting the provision for removing inequality in the matter
of payment of compensation, it must be held that a person who is not satisfied
with an award made under Section 28A(2) can make an application to the
Collector under Section 28A(3) for making a reference to the Court as defined
in Section 3(d) of the Act and this right cannot be frustrated merely because as
a result of re-determination made under Section 28A(2) read with Section 28A(1)
the applicant becomes entitled to receive compensation at par with other land
owners. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 28A(3) from which it
can be inferred that a person who has not accepted the award made under Section
28A(2) is precluded from making an application to the Collector with the
request to refer the matter to the Court. Of course, the Court to which
reference is made under Section 28A(3) will have to bear in mind that a person
who has not sought reference under Section 18 cannot get compensation higher
than the one payable to those who had sought reference under that section.
12.
Reverting
to the facts of this case, we find that on the date of making an award by the
Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28A, Appeal Suit No.978/1990 filed by
other land owners against the order of the Reference Court was pending before
the High Court. The same was finally disposed of 10 on 10.3.2000 and the
matter was remanded to the Reference Court for fresh determination of market
value of the acquired land. After reconsidering the matter, the Reference Court
passed order dated 17.7.2000 and fixed market value of the acquired land, which
was substantially higher than the one determined by earlier order dated
30.10.1989. Therefore, the appellant cannot be denied right to seek
determination of fair market value which has to be at least at par with market
value fixed by the Reference Court vide order dated 17.7.2000. The mere fact
that the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) remained
pending for more than 9 years and it was only on 10.5.2000 that the Collector
accorded permission for making reference to the Court, cannot be made a ground
to deprive the appellant of his legitimate right to seek further enhancement in
the amount of compensation. If the High Court enhances the compensation payable
to the other land owners, the appellant will also become entitled to higher
compensation. If the High Court dismisses both the appeals, then too the
appellant will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre
for the land falling in category I and Rs.15,000/- per acre for the land
falling in category II. If, on the other hand, the amount of compensation
payable in terms of order dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Reference Court is
reduced by the High Court then the amount payable to the appellant will have to
adjust accordingly.
13.
In
the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench
is set aside and it is held that the application filed by the appellant under
Section 28A(3) is maintainable. However, the Court before which O.P. No.31 of
2000 is pending shall pass appropriate order only after and in terms of
judgment of Appeal Suit Nos.688 and 1643 of 2001 by the High Court. The parties
are left to bear their own costs.
..................................J.
[G.S. Singhvi]
...................................J.
[Asok Kumar Ganguly]
New
Delhi
October
5, 2010.
Back
