DAYAL SINGH AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 29-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DA VAL SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 29, 2003 
[Y.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANNAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, I 894/Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable 
Property Act, 1952-Section 28A/Sections 8(J)(a) and 8(3): 
Acquisition proceedings under 1952 Act-Applicability of Section 28A-
Held: Provisions of section 28A not applicable since the mode and manner of 
compensation payable for acquisition of land under 1952 Act and 1894 Act 
are different and distinct. 
D 
Agreement between parties under 1952 Act-With regard to compensation 
awarded for the property acquired-Passing of subsequent award of enhanced 
compensation for similar class of lands-Reopening of agreement-
Permissibility of-Held: Agreement cannot be reopened in view of subsequent 
award-Further there being no provision in 1952 Act/or re-determination of 
E conipensation such right cannot be invoked by reading the same into the 
statute-Interpretation of ~tatutes. 
Appellant's lands were requisitioned and later on acquired for 
establishment of Military Cantonment by the respondents. Appellants 
were awarded compensation for which they entered into agreement under 
F the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. 
Appellants were also granted interest and solatium. However,. several 
land owners did not accept the award and made a reference. Atj>itrator 
awarded higher compensation, solatium and interest. Appella~ts then 
filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
for re-determination of compensation. Land Acquisition Collector 
G enhanced the compensation. Respondents then filed writ petition on the 
ground that the said award was illegal and without jurisdiction, relying 
on *Union of India v. Hori Krishan Khosla, (dead) by Lrs. case that the 
provisions of Land Acquisition Act were not applicable to acquisition 
made under the 1952 Act. Single Judge of High Court set aside the 
H 
714 
DAY AL SINGH v. \J.0.1. 
715 
award. Even the appeal was also dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
A 
Appellants inter alia contended that in *Union of India v. Huri Krishan 
Khosla, (dead) by lrs. case this Court did not take into consideration the 
question that if the provisions for grant of solatium and interest in terms 
of Section 23A(l) and 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act would apply in 
relation to acquisition under the 1952 Act, thus there is no reason as to 
why proceeding under Section 28A \Vould not be maintainable; that 
although Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act per se is not applicable 
to a proceeding under the 1952 Act, the said provisions should be read 
into therein; that in a case \\'here the parties entered into an agreement 
B 
in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (I) of Section 8 of 1952 Act, there is C 
no reason as to why the parties cannot enter into another agreement 
having regard to the fact that the Arbitrator has awarded enhanced 
compensation for acquisition of similarly situated lands; that the criteria 
for determination of compensation being the same, the provisions of the 
Land Acquisition Act should be held to be applicable being implicitly 
embodied therein; that the Collector himself having made an award, the D 
respondents could not have filed a writ petition; and that the respondents 
having filed a writ petition after a period of eight years the same could 
not have been entertained. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD I.I The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable 
Property Act, 1952 is a self-contained Code. It lays down a criteria for 
determination of compensation and also provides for the mode and manner 
thereof, Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the other hand, 
lays down the factors which are required to be taken into consideration F 
in determining the amount of compensation. The procedures for 
determining the award of compensation, the mode and manner in which 
the compensation is payable for acquisition of land under the 1952 Act 
and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are thus, distinct and different. The 
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are, ex-facie not applicable for 
determination of compensation under the 1952 Act. The provisions of the G 
Land Acquisition Act and the 1952 Act are, thus, not in pari-materia. 
Therefore the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act 
cannot be made applicable in relation to a proceeding under the 1952 
Act. (723-F-H; 724-A [ 
1.2.

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