LexDES RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H DES RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. OCTOBER I, 2004 (SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Ss. 4, 18 & 28/Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142: Notification-Acquisition of agricultural /ands-Award- Compensation-Reference-compensation enhanced/further enhanced by Reference Court/High Court-Filing of appeals by all but the present appellants-Supreme Court remanded the case to High Court to re-determine compensation-Review Retition filed by the present appellants claiming amount of compensation at par with others-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Appellants did not challenge the earlier order of the High Court nor did they file application for enhance1r.ent of compensation within time-Since reference sought under Section 18, benefit of Section 28-A for higher rate of compensation not available-Grounds raised were not sufficient to modify the order-High Court rightly dismissed the petitions-No case is made out for Supreme Court to exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Pursuant to the Notitlcation issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, Respondents acquired the agricultural lands of the appellants. Award was made fixing compensation at certain rate in respect of the lands so acquired. Aggrieved, appellants and others sought a reference. Reference Court enhanced the rate of compensation. On appeal, High Court further enhanced the compensation rate. Aggrieved thereby, all affected persons/claimants but the present appellants/ claimants filed appeals before this Court. The Court remanded the case to High Court for re-determination of compensation amount. High Court enhanced the rate of compensation. However, present appellants belatedly filed a Review Petition challenging the earlier order of the High Court to enhance the rate of compensation, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. It was contended for the appellants that since the amount of 934 DES RAJ v. U.0.1. 935 compensation has been considerably enhanced on re-determination by A the High Court as per directions of the Supreme Court in other connected cases, same benefit ought to have been given to them; and that this Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution could enhance the amount of compensation in their favour as well. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the impugned judgments, the High Court has taken note of the fact that the appellants did not challenge the earlier judgment of the High Court in appeal, as was done by the others. As a result, judgment and decree in their cases became final. The High Court also has noticed that although in the review applications reliance was sought to be placed on Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act claiming re- determination of the amount of compensation equal to that awarded to other interested persons in the same village, however, during the course of the hearing, the appellants abandoned the plea. Thus, the High Court, by the impugned judgments, dismissed the review applica1tions filed by the appellants. [938-A-B, C-D-E] Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese & Anr. Etc. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., JT (1996) IO SC 573, referred to. B.N Natarajan & Ors. Etc. v. State of Mysore & Ors. Etc., AIR (1966) SC 1942; Mis. Shenoy & Co., Bangalore & Ors. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle II, Bangalore & Ors., AIR (1985) SC 621; Ram Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., JT (1993) 5 SC 465; Union Carbide Corporation . Etc. Etc. v. Union of India Etc. Etc., AIR (1992) SC 248 and Bihar State Housing Board, State of Bihar & Ors. v. Ban Bihari Mahato & Ors., AIR (1988) SC 2134, distinguished. 1.2. Appellants did not press their claim on the ground as recorded in the judgments, having not made the applications within the prescribed time. Moreover, benefit of Section 28-A of the Act is available only to the parties who had not sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation and do not challenge judgment of the Reference Court/High Court thereafter. Hence, appellants shall not be entitled to claim enhanced compensation by pressing in~o service the provisions o! Section 28-A of the Act. [940-A-B-C] B c D E F G H A B c D 936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatind
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.