LexKENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD., NOIDA versus STATE OF U.P.& ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A .8 c [2008] 15 S.C.R 810 Kl:;NDRIYA KARAMCHA.RI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN SAMIT! LTD., NOIDA v. STATE OF U.P.·& ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos.r6850-51 of 2003) NOVEMBER 7, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Urban Development: Land Acqu_isition Act, 1897; Ss. 11, 18 and 28A: Acquisition of land - Compensation - Reference - Compensation enhanced by Reference Court - Challenged by State - Some of land owners, including appellant, filing D application in terms of Section 28A of the Act for enhancement of compensation as they were not parties to Reference - District Collector kept the application pending in view of Government's Order directing the authorities to keep application under Section 28A of the Act pending till final E decision in the matter under challenge is arrived at by the High Court/Supreme Court - Challenged by appellant and others - Dismissed by High Court - Review Petition dismissed by .High Court - Correctness of - Held: In case, Reference Court enhanced compensation in excess of the amount F awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, any person interested in the land covered by the same acquisition n_qtification could seek same relief by filing an application under Section 28A oMhe Act - Hence, impugned order not G · sustainable to that extent and set aside. Application under Section 28A of the Act - Kept pending by District Collector in view of State Government' Orders - Justification of...:. Held: De,.cision rendered by Reference Court enhancing compensation did not attain finality as it was· sub 810 I _) ) \ \, t> \ ' ' • / .,__ • .. • KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN 811 SAMIT! LTD., NOIDA v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. judice before the High Court, a superior Court - Under the A circumstances, no infirmity found in the action of the. District Collector in not deciding the applications. Application under Section 28A ·•of· the·· Act - Maintainability of - Held: The question as to maintainability B of the application is kept open and to be decided after final decision arrived at by the High Court/Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the State against the order of Reference Court . Nevr Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh had acquisitioned certain land for planned C development for public purpose. The Special land Acquisition Officer awarded . compensation . to landowners. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, some of the land owners sought Reference under s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. D Reference Court enhanced the compensation. Appellant- Samiti could not make Reference earlier; it, therefore, filed an application through its President in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) along with other land owners under Section 28A of the Act for E ·· grant of benefit of enhanced compensation. However, no decision had been taken by the District Collector and the Application was kept pending allegedly in pursuance of policy decisions taken by the State Government vide its Orders dated J~nuary 14, 1994 and June 13, 2001 to the effect that the applications filed by the persons who had not sought Reference should be kept pending till the matter is finally disposed of by the. High Court as well as F by the Supreme Court and no enhanced compensation should be paid to them. Aggrieved by the non-disposal G of his application under Section 28A of the Act, appellant filed writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Review. Petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed.by the High Court. Hence the present appeal and connected appeals. . . ---------- a12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 15 S.C.R. A Partly allowing the appeals; the Court "' .. HELD: 1. It is true that the land was purchased by the appellant from the Samiti and his name had been entered in Revenue Record. But the appellant was also the B President of the Samiti and an application was made by him in 'the capacity of the President. This Court would have entered into the said question provided it had been considered by the High Court and appropriate decision • had been taken thereon. The High Court, however, has ~ not decided the maintainability or otherwise of application c and locus standi of the appellant. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner before the Court could not be said to be a 'little Indian' who could not seek Reference under Section 18 of the D Lan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.