LexM/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. versus S.U.T.N.I. SANGAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 929 . ·. MIS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. A -\ v. S.U.T.N.I. SANGAM & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3874 of 2006 etc.) • JULY 29, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 18, 31 second proviso and 50 (2) - Acquisition of land c - Compensation - Acceptance of, with and without protest by different awardees - Reference for enhancement .of compensation amount - Reference courl allowing the case "' of the awardees who received the amount under protest - Rejection of reference of the awardees who accepted the D .. amount without protest and of those whose reference was filed -I beyond statutory period - Writ petition by the Association of land-holders - High Court directing the authorities to complete process of reference - On appeal, held: The awardees, who received compensation without any protest not E entitled to referencf! - An objection in response to a notice u/s. 9, cannot have the same effect as if an application has been filed u/s. 18 - When statute provides for limitation, compliance thereof is mandatory - It was not permissible to direct reference to the awardees whose applications were F belated - Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 5. Acquisition of land - Reference made on the direction of High Courl - State and the parly for whom land was acquired, not raising any objection in the reference proceedings - Held: Are estopped from challenging the G reference. Interpretation of Statutes - As statute must be read as a whole - If the principles of interpretation of statutes resorled 929 H 930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A to by the court leads to a fair reading of the provision, it would fulfill the conditions of applying the principles of purposive construction. B Doctrines/Principles: Principles of purposive construction - Applicability of. Statute prescribing a thing to b°e done in a particular manner - Is applicable to the statutory authority alone. C Land acquisition proceedings were initiated on the requisitions of appellant-Authority and appellant-Housing Board. In respect of land acquisition for the Auth,ority, some of the land-holders had accepted the compensation amount without protest and some 0 accepted it with protest. Applications u/s. 18 of Land Acquisition Act were filed for reference to Land Acquisition Court. Reference court granted enhanced compensation for the awardees who had accepted the same under protest. Reference court rejected the reference applications of those, who had accepted the E amount without protest. Some awardees filed reference application after the expiry of limitation period prescribed therefor. Their applications were also dismissed by reference court. Some land-owners formed an Association for protection of their legal rights. F Association filed writ petition and the same was allowed by High Court directing the authorities concerned to complete the process of reference. Intra-court appeals were also dismissed. Hence the present appeals. G In respect of the case of acquisition for Housing Board, the land owner, at the time of fixation of market value of the acquired land made a statement expressing his dissatisfaction over the quantum of compensation. He also stated that he would receive the amount under H protest. No reference was made by the Collector suo- ,. - ( STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I. 931 SANGAM & ORS. motu. Representations were made for reference. A Pursuant to filing of writ petition seeking reference, State made reference of some-cases which was not questioned by the appellant-Board. Representations for making reference for rest of the cases was rejected on the ground of limitation. Another writ petition seeking direction for s reference was allowed by High Court. State did not raise any objection with regard to the maintainability of order of reference. Reference court enhanced the amount of compensation. Appeals by the appellant-Board were dismissed. The judgment was further upheld in intra- c court appeal. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals filed by appellant-Authority and dismissing the appeals filed by appellant-Board, this Court, HELD: 1.1. The provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be read in their entirety. A holistic approach is required to be made for the purpose of interpretation of application of the provisions of the Act and so given, D the provisions thereof
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.