STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. versus MARRI VENKAIAH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 28-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

i· 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MARR! VENKAIAH AND ORS. 
JULY 28, 2003 
[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 28-A-Land acquired by common 
notification under Section 4-Applicants non-parties to reference proceedings 
initiated by other land owners-Re-determination of compensation amount 
on basis of Award of Court-Application under Section-Period of /imitation- C 
Computation of-From the date of Award by Civil Court or from the date of 
knowledge of passing of award by Civil Court-Held: Application is to be 
filed within three months from the date of pronouncement of Award by the 
Court by only excluding the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the 
award. 
D 
Certain land was acquired by notification issued under Section 4(1) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Land Acquisition Officer passed an award 
on 15.1.1982. Some of the land.owners filed reference application in respect 
of lands covered by the award. Civil Court enhanced the amount of 
compensation by an order dated 29.l i.1984. Respondents filed application E 
under Section 28-A on 27.11.1989 for enhancement of the compensation. Land 
Acquisition Officer dismissed the application as time barred. Respondents 
challenged the order. Division Bench of High Court held that three months 
period prescribed under Section 28-A has to be computed from the date of the 
knowledge of the passing of the Award and not from the date of the award by F 
Civil Court. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellants contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by 
the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal, erroneous and contrary to specific 
provisions of Section 28-A. 
Respondents contended that Section 28-A is a beneficial legislation; and 
that applicants being non-parties to the reference proceedings initiated by 
some other land owners, they would not have any knowledge of the date of the 
award or its contents, therefore, the interpretation given by the High Court 
to the provisions of Section 28-A does not call for any interference. 
G 
Ml 
H 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Plain language of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 would mean that the period of limitation is three months from the date 
of the Award of the Court. ft is also provided that in computing the period of 
three months, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time 
B requisite for obtaining the copy of the award is to be excluded. Therefore, 
Section 28-A crystallizes that application under Section 28A is to be filed 
within three months from the date of the award by the Court by only excluding 
the time requisite for obtaining copy. Hence, it is difficult to infer further 
exclusion of time on the ground of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant. 
C 
1845-A-BI 
1.2. Section 28-A is a beneficial provision. However, the advantage of 
the benefit which is conferred is required to be taken within the stipulated 
time. A land owner may be poor or illiterate and because of that he might not 
have filed reference application but that would not mean that he could be 
D negligent in not finding out whether other landowners have filed such 
applications. Whosoever wants to take advantage of the beneficial legislation 
has to be vigilant and has to take appropriate action within prescribed time. 
If that is not done then law cannot help him. 1845-F-H; 846-A) 
1.3. In the instant case, award enhancing the compensation was 
E pronounced by the civil court on 29.11.1984 and applications were filed after 
lapse of 5 years. In such case, as the applicant was having an opportunity of 
knowing the award and/or he was required to make efforts of knowing about 
such proceedings, he must be presumed to have had knowledge of the award. 
If the respondent's submission is accepted, it will create total vagueness and 
uncertainty as landowners can claim that they have come to know of the award 
F after long lapse of time and, therefore, the application even though beyond 
time may be entertained. If such applications are entertained, there may not 
be any finality to the award and payment of compensation. Such proceedings 
may adversely affect where land is acquired by the Government for a project 
which is to be carried out by local bodies. (846-A-Cf 
G 
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer 
and Anr., ( 19621 I SCR 676 and State of Punjab v

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.