I
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
A
v.
I.cir
RAGHBIR SINGH AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 28, 1995
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act-Amendment Act 68 of 1984-Not ap-
(--
plicable-Application for reference does not lie.
(
,-•
After notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the c
-'-(
Collector made his award. The respondents did not seek any reference for
the same as provided in S.18 of the Act.
One of the claimants in the same notification appealed the High
Court which enhanced his compensation. On the basis of that High Court
judgment the respondents sought reference of the civil court. The Colector D
dismissed the reference but the High Court in revision directed re-deter-
mination of the compensation.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : The application for reference does not lie. The reference E
could be made only on the basis of the judgment of tht> Reference Court
but within the limitation prescribed under the proviso of S.28A(l). In this
case neither the application was filed within limitation nor immediately
after the award of the District Court. Under these circumstances the
Amendment Act 68 of 1984 cannot be applied and the High Court clearly F
r~
committed error of law in allowing the revision. (378-E]
-/
Babua Ram and Others v. State of U.P. andAnr., JT (1994) 7 SC 377,
applied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3521 of G
1995.
--..(_
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.92 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 885 of 1992.
- G.K. Bansal for the Appellant.
H
377
' }
'
- - ---1
. •\'
\
'
·,.
•• >
...
'
'· 378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
·--c-. [1995] 2 S.C.R.
A
.·
'R.K Talwar, Goodwin Ind~evar fo; the Respondents.
\
~ ·.
The follo\\ing Order of the Court was. delivered : '.
\
>
The Notification under Section 4(1) was published on February+,
1981 for public purpose. The Collector made an award under Section 11
B on December 22,' 1983: The respondents did not seek for a"y reference
under Section · 18. The High Court in the appeal filed by one of the.
claimants. in the same notification by the judgment and decree . datecl
Septemnber 10, 1990 enhanced the compensation at Rs. 1, 75,000 per. acre.
Thereon the respondents filed the application on January 2, 1991 under
·Section 28A seeking reference to the Civil Court on the basis of the
c . judgment of the Higll eo'urt. The Collector dismissed the application on
January 22, 1992. Thereon the responde;,ts filed revision in the High Coiirt.
The High Coiirt in the impugned order dated August 14, 1992 allowed and .
directed fe~detCnnination of the compens~tion, on the basis of the judg-
. ment of th High Court dated Sept. 12, 1990. ·
·
· · ·
' . ' . . ,.
'
.. ,- ' . '
'. ' .
D
The entire controversy is now covered by judgment of this Court in
Babua Ram & Others v. State of U.P. &Anr., J.T. (1994) 7 SC 377. In view
of the above judgment the necessary conclusion is that the application for
reference does not lie. The reference could be made only' on the basis of
the Judgment of the Reference Court but within the limitation prescribed
. E . under the proviso.of Sec. 28A(l). hi this ease neither the application was
filed within limitation nor iniinediately after the award of the Distnct
- Court. Under these' circumstances tbC Amendment Act 68 of 1984 caiinot
be applied and the High Court clearly committed error of law in allowing
the i:evisioiL The apPealis allowed. The order of the High Court in C.R.
F
No. 88/1992 dated August 14, .1992 is set ~ide btit in the circumst~ces
without costS. ·
. .
'
·
"
A.G.
Appeal allowed.
___ ,_ .
•
.!
.,
Lex