A SUSHAMA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition comes up on a reference by a learned Single Judge raising the question is as to whether the ratio of Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar(1) 2004 (3) K.L.T. 261 sustains in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Babu Ram and others v. State of UP & another(2)(1995) 2 S.C.C. 689 which was overruled in Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari and others(3),(1995) 2 S.C.C. 736 only on the question of limitation. Reference is also made by the learned Single Judge to Somasundaran v. Spl. Tahsildar, L. A.(4)2002 (2) K.L.T. 569 and Ram Mehar v. Union of India(5).A.I.R. 1987 Delhi 130

(2.) In the case in hand, the complaint of the petitioner is that the request of her late husband for redetermination of compensation under Section 28 A( 1) was rejected merely on the ground that the award of the Court relied on by him was one that related to garden land while the land acquired from the petitioner's predecessor was a piece of paddy field.

(3.) The aforesaid, essentially, gives rise to a disputed question as to how the value of compensation has to be determined, if at all to be paid. It requires an adjudication by the competent statutory authority on the basis of material evidence, including a comparative evaluation of the different pieces of land. That adjudication is not one to be carried out in writ jurisdiction, ordinarily.