THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ANR. versus ROOPCHAND DAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 03-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ANR. 
v. 
ROOPCHAND DAS AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 2002 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 28-A: 
Land acquisition-Compensation-More than one award-Petition filed 
C for redetermination of compensation against subsequent award-Rejected by 
Land Acquisition Collector as time barred counting period of limitation from 
an earlier award in respect of same lands_:_Reversed by High Court-On 
appeal, Held: Since provisions of law allow filing of application by the 
awardee for redetermination of compensation against an award without any 
D restriction as to choice of award when more than one awards passed--
Application for redetermination of compens(ltion could be filed against 
subsequent award counting period of limitation accordingly. 
The question of law which arose in these appeals was when more than 
one award passed by the Reference Court on different dates in respect of lands 
E covered by the same Notification for the purpose of computing three months 
period for filing of application for redetermination of compensation as 
stipulated in Section .28-A of the Land Acquisition Act whether the date of 
earliest award would only be relevant and not the ~ubsequent or latest date of 
awards. 
F 
Answering the question in negative, the Court 
HELD: The later part. of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 
stipulates that the amount of compensation payable to awardee may be re-
determined on the basis of.the amount of compensation·awarded by the Court 
and leaves the choice to the person making such an application for re-
G determination, without confining o~ restricting the area of choice of such 
person to any one or the other award though it could be availed of only once 
and not as many number of times as there are so many awards. Under the 
circumstances, the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Officer that for 
purposes of computing the three months period stipulated in Section 28-A of 
H the Act, the date of the earliest award would be relevant and not the subsequent 
. 
448 
-I 
STATE v. ROOPCHAND DAS [DORAISWAMY RAJU. J.] 
449 
or latest was rightly rejected by the High Court. [451-C; 450-D-Ej 
Union of India and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari and Ors., f 1995[ 2 SCC 736 
and Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. ·Rodr.iquese and Anr. v. land Acquisition 
Collector and Anr., j1996f 6 SCC 746, relied on. 
A 
Union of India and Anr. v. Hanso/i Devi and Ors., [20021 7 SCC 273, B 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURl.SDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3515of1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.1997 of the High Court of 
Gauhati, in C.R. Nos. 12of1997. 
C 
Gopal Singh, Navin Prakash and Rahul Singh, for the Appellants. 
For Respondent Ex-parte .in CA 3516/1997. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
RAJU, J. These two appeals involve common and identical questions 
of law and are dealt with together. In C.A.No. 3515 of 1997, the challenge is 
to the judgment dated 21.1.97 of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, 
made in Civil Rule No.12 of 1997,.whereunder the High Court, applying the 
earlier decision rendered in Civil Rule IO of 1997, directed, while setting aside E 
the order dated 18.9.96 of the Land Acquisition Collector, the said Collector 
to consider the petitions filed by the respondent-landowners under Section 
28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") 
on merits and in accordance with law, holding them to be within the period 
of limitation stipulated therefor. The appeal in C.A. No.351611997 is against F 
the above noticed earlier decision in Civil Rule I 0 of 1997 dated 21.1.97. 
So far as C.A. No.3515 of 1997 is concerned, relying upon the Reference 
Court's Award dated 19.9.94 in case Nos. Misc. L.A.29/92 and 30/92, the 
respondents sought by a petition filed on 16.12.94 for re-determination of the 
compensation for their lands invoking Section 28-A of the Act. The Land G 
Acquisition Collector rejected the claim by his order dated 18.9.96 on the 
ground that the same was not filed within the stipulated period of three 
months inasmuch as, according to the Collector, the period of limitation had 
to be calculated from 25.5.94, an earlier Award of the Reference Court in 
respect of the !ands covered by the same Notification under Section 4 ( 1) of 
the Act and not with reference to the latest or subsequent Awards of the H 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Reference Court. So far as the a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.