LexJOSE ANTONIO CRUZ DOS R. RODRIGUESES AND ANR. ETC. versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JOSE ANTONIO CRUZ DOS R. RODRIGUESES AND ANR. ETC. A v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR. NOVEMBER 13, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 28-A Land acquisition-Compensation-Grant of higher compensation under subsequent award~Application for redete1mination of compensa- tion-Period of limitation-Reckoning from date of subsequent award~Per missibility of-Matter referred to a Larger Bench. By an award dated August 2, 1972 compensation@ Rs. 1.25 per sq. B c mt. was determined for acquisition of appellant's land. However, by sub- sequent awards made on June 4, 1985 and October 14, 1985 for other lands D acquired under the same notification higher compensation was awarded. The High Court in an appeal decided on August 31, 1987 and a Reference Court by its deci'iion dated July 27, 1989 also awarded compensation at the higher rates. An application made by the appellant on 13.5.1987 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of the compensation was dismissed on the ground of delay. In this Court it was contended for the appellant that there was no bar of limitation because any one of the successive awards including the judgment and decree of the High Court would give right and cause of E action to the Petitioner to make an application under Section 28-A. F On the questions whether : (i) the award of the Court i.e. Civil Court made under Section 26 on reference under Section 18 would also include judgment and decree of the Appellate Court under section 54? G (ii) Whether each successive awards or judgment and decree would give cause of action to file application under Section 28-A; if so construed, does not such a construction violate the languag~ used in Section 28-A when the Parliament advisedly did not use such expression? H 173 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Disposing the petition, this Court HELD : These questions require examination by a larger Bench of five Judges as the interpretation of Section 28-A on the limitation of three months often arises in-many a case throughout the country. (176-B] B Union of India & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumali & Ors., (1995] 2 SCC 736, cited. Babua Ram v. State of U.P., (1995) 2 SCC 689; Union of India v. Kamai! Singh, (1995) 2 SCC 728; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754; V. Krishnamurti & Ors. v. State of Olissa, (1995) 1 SCR 488 C and State of Punjab v. Raghubir Singh and Ors., (1995) 2 SCR 377, referred to. D E CIVIL APPELLATE JU_RISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24435 of 1995 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.95 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 471 of 1988. S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, Aman Vachher for the Petitioners. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Sri Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published on 3.10.1969 and the award under Section F 11 was made in the case of his clients on August 2, 1972 determining compensation under Section 23(1) at Rs. 1.25 per sq. mt. for plot No. 23 admeasuring 24721 sq. mts. Subsequently, successive awards for other lands acquired under the same notification were made, on June 4, 1985 at Rs. 5 per sq. mt., on October 14, 1985 at Rs. 9 per sq. mt. and another judgment and decree on August 31, 1987 by the High Court in Appeal G No.11/86 uniformly fixing the compensation at Rs. 5 per sq. mt. Yet another reference under Section 18 was decided on July 27, 1989 by the Reference Court at Rs. 5 per sq. mt. Though he filed the application on 13.5.1987, in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumali & Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 736, any one of the awards or each successive H award including the judgment and decree of the High Court would give ... - JOSE ANrONIO CRUZ DOS R RODRIGUESES v. LAND ACQN. COLLECTOR 175 right and cause of action to the petitioner-claimant to make application A under Section 28-A. So, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay. The views of the Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court wrong in law. Section 28-A says that where in an award under this part, the Court allowed the application under Section 18 and awarded higher compensa- tion, notwithstanding that the claimant had not made an application under Section 18, he can make an application "within thr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.