LexSMT. BHAGTI (DECEASED) THROUGH HER L.RS. JAGDISH RAM SHARMA versus THE STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SMT. BHAGTI (DECEASED) THROUGH HER L.RS. JAGDISH RAM SHARMA v. THE STATE OF HARYANA JANUARY 27, 1997 [K RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 28-A. C Land acquisition---Compensation--Redetermination of compensa- tion-Persons eligible to apply for-Period of limitation for filing application of redetennination-Acquisition of land for development and utilisation of the land for residential pwpose~Award of compensation for-Reference under section 18 not sought by appellant-But on reference sought by other land-owners District Judge enhanced compensation---Compensation further D e11hanced by High Court-171ereafter appellant filed an application u11der section 28-A-Said application filed within 30 days from the date of judgme11t · "- of the High Court-Application dismissed by Land Acquisitio11 Officer but District Judge redetennined the compensation-High Court set aside the award of Reference Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, the E claimants are not entitled to make an application for re-detennination of compensation under Section 28-A(l) after judgment of the High Court; nor are the claimants entitled to avail of that award which is more beneficial to the claimants, i.e. the High Cowt judgment-The limitation period begins to run from" the date of award of Distlict Judge-17ie application though filed F · within limitation from the date of High Court's judgment was not main- tainable. Babua Rum & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1995) 2 SCC 689, referred to. G Jose Antanio Cruz Dos R. Rodriqueses & Anr. v. LandAcquisition Collector & Anr., [1996] 1 SCC 88 = J.T. (1995) 8 SC 328; U.P. State Industrial Development Coporation Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1995) 2 SCC 766 and State of Maharashtra v. Manakchand Pyannal & Ors., [1996) 1sec297. R Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India, ~'7~ ... SMT. BHAGTiv. STATE 577 AIR (1991) SC 730; State of Punjab v. Raghbir Singh & Ors., [1995) Supp. A "-'f 2 SCC 679; State of Punjab v. Raglmbir Singh, [1989) 3 SCR 316 and P. . ..,, ... Venkamma & Ors. v. Special Tehsilda1; (LA) Unit-W, Janagareddigudem W. G. District, Elugi, A.P., [1996) 1 85, relied on, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition No. ~~~ B From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.92 . of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 73 of 1991. Mrs. Meera Agarwal, Kuldeep Singh and R.C. Mishra for the Ap- c pellant. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This special leave arises from order of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on August 18, 992 in Civil Revision D No. 73 of 1991. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decision of this Court in Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1995) 2 SCC 689 was referred to a Constitution Bench in Jose Antanio Crnz Dos E R. Rodriqueses & Anr. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., [1996) 1 SCC 88 = J .T. ( 1995) 8 SC 328 and thereafter cases with similar facts were also referred. We find that the statement is not accurate and in the facts of this case, the question does not arise. The admitted position is as under. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 F (for short the 'Act') was published on June 26, 1973 acquiring 133.24 acres of land situated in Village Dara Kalan, District Kurukshetra for develop- ment and utilisation of the land for residential purposes. The Collector in his award dated July 17, 1975 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3 per square yard. The appellant did not seek any reference under Section G 18. However, on reference sought by others, the District Judge in his award and decree dated October 3, 1981 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7 per sq. yd. Dissatisfied therewith, those claimants filed appeal in the Hi~ Court. The High Court by Judgment and decree dated March 14, 1990 further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 37 per sq. yd. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application within the prescribed limitation period of 30 H 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R. A days from the date of the judgment of the High Court under Section 28-A of the Act for payment of the enhanced compensation. The Land Acquisi- tion Collector by Order dated September 5, 1990 dismissed the application but the District Judge re-determined the compensation by Order dated December 24, 1991. The revision application, on reference by the learn
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.