LexMEWA RAM (DECEASED) BY HIS L.RS. AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,GURGAON
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MEWA RAM (DECEASED) BY HIS L.RS. AND ORS. v. STAIB OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ·B ACQUISITTON COLLECTOR, GURGAON AUGUST 26, 1986. [A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] -+ c Limitation Act, 1963, section 5-Inordinate delay in filing S.L.P. ~ -Delay not explained-Whether enhancement of the rate of compensa- tion by the Court in a subsequent case a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing a S.L.P. Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sections 25 and 28A-Redetermi- D nation of the amount of compensation-When permissible. -r- The petitioners, after a lapse of more than three years from the date of the High Conrt Jndgment, filed the present petitions for enh- ancement of the rate of compensation to Rs.17.50 per sqnare yard on I the ground that the Supreme Court in two cases decided on April 1, E 1982 bad enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.17 .50 per square yard for the adjacent land acquired. Counsel for the petitioners' con- .,,\ tended that the Court should not be unduly technical and deprive the '· citizens of their legitimate claims in view of the change in law by the introduction of sections 25 and 28A in the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. F Dismissing the petitions, --\ HELD: There is no reason to grant special leave in these cases which are hopelessly barred by time. Merely because the Supreme ~ Court in the two cases enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.17 .50 G per square yard, could not furnish a gro\lnd for condonation of delay under section 5 of tbe Limitation Act. [663D-E] 2.1 Section 28A of the Act in terms does not apply to the case of the petitioners for more than one reason. In the first place, they do not belong to that class of society for whose benefit the provision is intended >· H and meant, i.e. inarticulate and poor people· who by reason of their 660 ....... M. RAM v .. STATE OF HARYANA !SFN. J.J 661 poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners had all applied for reference under section 18 of the Act and the civil court by adopting a different basis for computa- tion, namely, treating the land to be potential building site, substan- tially enhanced the amount of compensation. ~n appeal, there was further enhancement by the High Court and the petitioners have with- drawn large snms of money at each stage. Evidently, th.. petitioners felt satisfied with the enhanced amount of compensation as awarded by the High Court @Rs.12.25 per square yard because they did not apply f~r grant of special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution for more than ihree years. [662H; 663A-E) 2.2 There is also no provision in the Act apart from section 28A for reopening of an award which has become fmal and conclusive. lfthe conditions laid down in the section were satisfied, the petitioners contd have availed of the remedy provided under section 28A of the Act. In that event, section 25 would ensure to their benefit. Any other view would lead to disasterous consequences not intended by the Legislature. [663E-G] Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor v. Venkatadri (dead) by Lrs., (1979] 4 SCC °176, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13379 of 1983 etc. t~ From the judgment and Order dated 8.5.1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 2030of1978. S.N. Kacker and S.K. Sabharwal for the Petitioners. K.G. Bhagat, l.S. Goel and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respon- . dents. The Order of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. In these special leave petitions which are much belated. the only qu.estion was whether the Court should entertain the petitions . despite the delay and grant special leave merely because this Court in .Paltu Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Nand Kishore & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Civil Appeals Nos. 1251 and 1252 of 1982, both decided on April l, 1982) enhanced the rate of compensation for A B c D E F G H A B 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R. the'adjacent land acquired to Rs.17.50 per square yard. The petition of Mewa Ram is barred by 1079 days, that of Pat Ram by 1146 days and of Ram Sarup by 1098 days. We heard the matter thrice on the question whether there was any sufficient cause for condonation of delay under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We were not satisfied t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.