UNION OF INDIA Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Notification under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894 for short 'the Act', acquiring 80 bighas 18 biswas of land situated in revenue estate, Bhatinda, Tehsil and District Bhatinda along with other lands was published on 9/10/1974. The Collector made an award under Section 11 on 11/6/1975 determining the market value, based on the classification of the land, between Rs. 4,500. 00 to Rs. 16,000. 00 per acre. The respondents had accepted the compensation without protest and did not seek any reference under Section 18. Some other claimants sought and secured reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge by his award dated 31/7/1979 determined the compensation enhancing the market value from Rs. 5,625. 00 to Rs. 20,000. 00 per acre. On appeal, the High court had modified the award. Ultimately on appeal, this court determined the market value at Rs. 15. 00 to Rs. 17. 00 per sq. yd. by judgment dated 24/8/1987. The respondents made a written application under Section 28-A on 24/11/1987. The Land Acquisition Collector had redetermined the market value under Section 28-A (2 by his award dated 28/2/1989 but did not award solatium and interest and the additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. The respondents made another application - CM No. 4978 of 1990- " enclosing another award dated 15/3/1990 made by the District court in yet another reference and sought the statutory benefits. Since it was denied, inthe respondents' writ petition, a learned Single Judge, by his order dated 21/12/1990, allowed the WP and directed the award of the additional benefits. In LPA No. 1211 of 1992 filed by the appellants by judgment and order dated 21/12/1992, the division bench dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3.) It is contended by Shri V. R. Reddy, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants that though the award made by the Collector under Section 28-A dated 28/2/1989 was not separately challenged, the appellants have in fact impugned its validity in the LPA before the division bench and grounds also have been raised in this appeal. It is also contended that the Amendment Act had since come into force on 24/9/1984, the earliest award, on the reference court made on 31/7/1979, should be the relevant one and any subsequent award made by the reference court or the judgment of this court dated 24/8/1987 do not furnish any cause of action to file the application under Section 28-A. The award made under Section 28-A, therefore, is without jurisdiction and a nullity. It is also contended that the High court committed illegality in making the award and failed to correct the manifest error of law committed by the Collector in his award made under Section 28-A. Shri R. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, contends that in Babua Ram v. State of U. P. ' by judgment dated 4/10/1994, this court has held that the Amendment Act (68 of 1984 is prospective in operation and that, therefore, any award made by the reference court after the Amendment Act has come into force would furnish the cause of action to the claimants to make an application within three months thereafter. The award was made in another reference on 15/3/1990 and within three months thereafter, the respondents are entitled to file an application under Section 28-A. Therefore, the application filed on 24/11/1987 could be treated to be one filed pursuant to that award. Even otherwise, when all other claimants have been awarded enhanced compensation, in equity the respondents also are entitled to parity in payment of the compensation. This court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 15. 00 to Rs. 16. 00 per sq. yd. So the respondents too are entitled to the same. It is further contended that the order passed by the Single Judge as affirmed by the division bench is not a substitution to the Collector's award but only an additional benefit. The award made under Section 28-A (2 having been allowed to become final, it is not open to the appellants to contend that the award passed by the Collector under Section 28-A (2 is illegal or without jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it is not a fit case warranting interference by this court under Article 136 or 142 of the Constitution.