BHARATSING S/O GULABSINGH JAKHAD & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 12-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 470 
A 
BHARATSING S/O GULABSINGH JAKHAD & ORS. 
B 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civi!Appea!No.21792 of2017) 
DECEMBER 12, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
s. 28A - Re-determination of compensation amount on the 
C 
basis of award of the Court - When the award, based on which re-
determination is sought. is pending in appeal - Held: During 
pendency of the appeal, s. 28A application is required to he kept 
pending till the disposal of the appeals - In the present case. the 
Land Acquisition Collector wrongly decided application u!s. 28-A 
D while the appeal was pending. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Though there is no quarrel with the principle 
that only a single application is maintainable, in the instant case, 
the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals 
E on the relied on awards were pending when application u/s 28A 
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was decided. That is the special 
and distinctive factual position in the instant case. It must also 
be kept in mind that Section 28A is a beneficial provision. [Para 
16)(477-D-E] 
F 
2. Section 28A application based on the awards passed by 
Reference Court was decided when the appeals therefrom were 
pending. The Collector ought to have kept the application pending 
till the appeals were decided. On principle, the High Court is 
correct and justified in the view taken in the impugned judgment 
that there cannot be successive applications under Section 28A. 
G No doubt, the second application dated 27.05.2009 for re-fixation 
in light of the appellate court judgment is not maintainable. 
However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the 
application when the matter was pending in appeal, in the peculiar 
facts of the instant case, the application dated 31.12.1992 should 
H 
470 
BHARATSING S/O GULABSINGH JAKHAD v. STATE OF 
471 
MAHARASHTRA 
be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The A 
Land Acquisition Collector is directed to consider afresh the 
Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 and pass orders in the 
light of the judgment of the High Court. [Para 17][477-E-H] 
. 
Babua Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Am: (1995) 2 
SCC 689 : [1994) 4 Suppl. SCR 148; U.P. State 
Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd v. State of U.P. and 
Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 766 : [1994) 4 Suppl. SCR 581; 
Union of India v. Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors. 
(2006) 4 SCC 538 : (2006) 2 SCR 816; Kendriya 
Karamchari Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti Limited Naida 
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Am: (2009) 1 SCC 754 : 
(2008) 15 SCR 810 - relied on. 
Union of India and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari and Ors. 
(1995) 2 SCC 736 : [1995) 2 SCR 703; Jose Antonio 
Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and Anr. v. Land Acquisition 
Collector Union of India v. Munshi Ram (Dead) By 
Lrs. and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 746 : (1996) 8 Suppl. SCR 
910 - distinguished. 
Case Law Reference 
(1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 148 
relied on 
Para9 
(1994) 4 Suppl. SCR 581 
relied on 
Para 10 
[2006) 2 SCR 816 
distinguished Para 11 
(1996) 8 Suppl. SCR 910 
distinguished Para 12 
[1995) 2 SCR 703 
relied on 
Para 13 
[2008) 15 SCR 810 
relied on 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 21792 
of2017. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2015 of the High Court 
G 
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 309 
of2015. 
M. Y. Deshmukh, Shakti Pandey, Sagar N. Pahune Patil, Advs. 
for the Appellant. 
H 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Ajay K. Tyagi, Abhishek Sharma, Nishant Ramakantrao 
Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
B 
2. What is the course to be adopted by the Land Acquisition 
Collector under Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, I 894 
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), when the award based on which 
enhancement is sought is pending in appeal, is the issue arising for 
consideration in this case. 
c 
3. The Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 17.01.1974. The 
compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on 
04.06.1977. The appellants did not pursue the matter further under Section 
18 of the Act in Reference. However, other claimants of the lands 
covered by the same Section 4( l) Notification took up the matter further 
and the Reference Court allowed enhancement and fixed the land value 
D at Rs.5,000/- per acre in the place of Rs.3,000/3,5

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.