JOSE ANTONIO CRUZ DOS R. RODRIGUESE AND ANR. versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 910 · Decided: 20-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JOSE ANTONIO CRUZ DOS R. RODRIGUESE AND ANR. 
B 
c 
v. 
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJI., S.B. MAJMUDAR 
AND 8.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Land Lall's : 
Land Acquisition Act, 
189~: Section 211-A. 
Acquisition of Land-Co111pe11satio11-Redeter111ination of-
Limilation of 3 months for making app/icalionfor-Held, mus/ be computed 
from dale of all'ard of Reference Court on basis of which redetermination 
was sought and not ji-om date of order of appellate Court dealing with 
D appeal against award of Reference Court. 
A certain parcel of land was acquired for a public purpose by a 
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The 
Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at different rates 
for different plots comprising the land under acquisition. On a 
E reference made under Section 18 of the Act the reference court 
enhanced the rates of compensation for different plots of land. In 
appeal, the High Court fixed an uniform rate for all the plots of 
land. Thereafter, the appellant submitted an application under Section 
28-A of the Act for redetermination of compensation for his plot of 
land. The Deputy Collector dismissed the said application as time-
F barred, having been referred after the expiry of three months 
prescribed by Section 28-A of the Act. The question before this Court 
was whether the period of three months began to run against the 
appellant from the date of the Award of the reference court under 
Section 18 of the Act or from the date of the decision of the appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I.I. The plain language of Section 28-A of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribes the three months period of limitation 
to be reckoned from the date "of the award by the Court disposing of 
H the reference under Section 18 of the Act and not the appellate Court 
910 
•• 
JOSEANIDNIOCRUZIXlS R. v. LANDACQN.CDLLECTOR[AHMADl,CJ.] 911 
dealing with the appeal against the award of the reference Court. A 
The period of limitation would start to run from the date of the 
reference court's order on the basis whereof the redetermination was 
sought on the basis of the reference court's order long after three 
months even from the time the last order had elapsed and hence the 
applications were clearly time-barred. (914 B-GJ 
Babua Ram v. State of UP., [19951 2 SCC 689; Union of India v. 
Kamai/ Singh, [1995) 2 SCC 728 and Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, 
It 9951 2 sec 736, relied on. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14637 of C 
1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.95 of the Bon:bay High 
Court in W.P. No. 471 of 1988. 
Dhruv Mehta and S.K. Mehta for the Appellants. 
A.S. Nambiar and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AHMADI, CJI. Special Leave granted. 
The question which arises for determination in these two appeals is 
whether the period of three months prescribed for making an application 
for redetermination of the amount of compensation under Section 28-A 
D 
E 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') begins to F 
run against the applicant from the date of the Award under Section 18 of 
the Act or even from the date of the decision of the appeal, if any, preferred 
against the Award. In order to appreciate the point raised, we may at once 
read Section 28-A insofar as it is relevant: 
"28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on G 
the bas;s of the award of the court (l) Where in an award 
under this Part, court allows to the applicant any amount of 
compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the 
Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the 
other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, H 
912 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l996J SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
sub-section ( l) and who are also aggrieved by the award of 
the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made 
an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written 
application to the Collector within three months from the 
date of the award of the Court require that the amount of 
compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the 
basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court: 
Provided that in computing the period of three months within 
which an application to the Collector shall be made under 
this sub-section the day on which the award was pronounced 
and the time requisite, for obtaining a copy of 

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