U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOMENT CORPORATION LTD versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 19-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOMENT CORPORATION LTD. 
B 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 19, 1994 
[K. RA,MASWAMY, M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
Land JC!cquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 18, 28-A (1) and (2), Land 
Acquisition-Compensation-Award by District Judge-Stage's appeaf-Pen-
dency of-Application under Section 28-A ( 1) during-Held such application 
should be k~t pending till disposal of State's appeal. 
C 
For acquisition of certain lands the Collector passed awards deter-
mining the compensation. Some of the claimants received compensation 
without protest and some on protest. On reference by the claimants of later 
category they were granted enhanced compensation against which State 
preferred wl'it petition before the High Court. During the pendency of the 
writ petition, the claimants of formercategory made an application under 
D section 28-A (1). Following the award of the District Court the Land Ac-
quisition Officer passed awards under section 29-A (2). Petitions challeng-
•ing these aw;irds were dismissed by the High Court. 
E 
F 
In ap~eals to this Court on the question whether the Collector was 
right in determining the compensation under section 28-A: 
Allowi,ng the appeals and setting aside the orders of the High Court, 
this Court 
HELi~ : In view of the law laid down in Babua Ram's case the High 
Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions. The award of the 
Collector made under section 28-A (2) is quashed and he is directed to keep 
the application filed under section 28-A (1) of the Act pending till the 
disposal of the appeal. He should determine the compensation based on the 
final judgm¢nt according to law. [581B-F] 
Babua Ram and Ors. v.State of U.P., [1994] Suppl. 4SCR148, reled on. 
CIVILAPPELLA TEJURISDI CTIO N: Civil Appeal Nos. 8112-14/94etc. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.1992 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Writ Peto. Nos. 16908, 16910 and 16909 of 
1989 respectively. 
V.A. jlobde, U.N.R. Rao, G.L. Sanghi, C.S. Vaidyanathan, R. 
Venkatachal~pathi, U.a. Rana,RajivTyagi,Anand Prasad, Mohinder Rupal, 
H Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalitha Kohli, S. Bala Krishnan, S. Prasad, SatendraJain, 
581-A 
U.P.STATEINDSL.DEV.CORPN. LTD. v. STATE 
581B 
Satendra Jain, R.N. Keshwani, A. Maniarputharn and Ms. A;una Mathur, A 
U.N. Kourd and Ashok Grover for the appearing parties 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Thease appeals arise from the judgment of the High c;ourt of Allahabad B 
dated 29.11.1992 made in W.P. No.16908/89 and batch. The only controversy 
in these cases is whether the Collector was right in determining the compen-
sation under s. 28-A of the Act. The notification under s.4(2) of the Land Ac-
quisition Act, 1894, Act No. 1 of 1894, for short 'the Act', was published on 
February 9, 1962. the Collector passed the awards relating to three villages on 
different dates determining the compensation. Some of the claimants C 
received the compensation without protest and some on protest. Those who 
received the compensation under protest sought for and secured references 
under s. 18 to the Civil Court. The Addi. District Judge, Ghaziabad in his 
award and decree dated May23, 1987 enhanced the compensation. The State 
filed F.A. No. 668of1987 which io pending disposal in the High Court at Al-
lahabad. The claimants who received the compensation without protest made D 
applications under s.28-A (1) of the Act. Following the award of the District 
Court, the land acquisition officer passed the award under s. 28-A (2) of the 
Act. This was challenged by the appellants in the High Court in the writ peti-
tions which were dismissed. Thus these appeals by special leave. 
The entfre controversy has been considered by this Court inBabua Ram 
and Ors. v. State of U.P. dated 4.10.1994 rendered in C.A. Nos. 563/94 and E 
batch and held that since an appeal has been preferred by the State against 
the award of the Dist!. Judge made under s.26 of the Act, the proper course 
open to the L.A.0., on an application made under s.28-A(l) of the Act, would 
be to keep the applications under s.28-A(l) pending till the appeal filed 
against the award of the District Judge is disposed of by the High Court and 
then to take action as per s.28-A(2) of the Act, Following the law laid down 
therein and subject to directions contained therein, we hold that the High 
Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions. Therefore, the or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.