D KRISHNA VENI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 for short 'the Act' was published on 11/8/1971 acquiring about 700 acres of land in Golabandha Buxi Palli, Vikrampur in Ganjam District of orissa State. By award dated 18/10/1976, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value. On reference under Section 18, the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the award of the Collector at the rate of Rs. 80. 00 per fruit- bearing tree and Rs. 60. 00 per non-fruit-bearing tree as full value in addition to the compensation to the land by his award and decree dated 21/8/1986. The appellants did not carry the matter in appeal. When others filed the appeal under Section 54 of the Act, the High court had enhanced the compensation for the fruit-bearing tree to Rs. 990. 00 and Rs. 650. 00 for non-fruit-bearing tree by its judgment and decree dated 12/12/1989. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 23/5/1990 for redetermination. The Land Acquisition Officer dismissed the application and thereafter the High court by its order dated 8/2/1993 confirmed the same in OJC No. 965 of 1992. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3.) It is contended that when the High court awarded higher compensation by operation of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants also are entitled to the same benefit. The point is now squarely covered by two judgments of this court in Scheduled Castes Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India and Babua Ram v. State of U. P. Therefore, the appellants having failed to avail of the remedy of appeal and having already availed the remedy of reference under Section 18, 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 thereunder. Equally the bar of res judicata clearly would apply to the appellants. The application under Section 28-A is, therefore, notmaintainable. The Collector and the High court rightly refused to grant the amount on a par with the judgment of the High court.