UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus BABU SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 04-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
BABU SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 : 
S.8-Acquisition of lan~Award by arbitrator-Wiit petition by land 
C owners seeking direction for reference under s.28-A of Land Acquisition 
Act-Held, s.28-A of Land Acquisition Act has no application to acquisition 
under the Act-Wivng concession made by counsel does not bind the party. 
D 
E 
F 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
S.28-A-Redetermination of compensation-Held, provision not ap-
plicable to acquisition of land made under the Requisitioning and Acquisition 
of Immovable Property Act, 1952. 
Certain lands of the respondents were acquired under s.8 of the 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 for the 
purpose of defence. The arbitrator determined the compensation by his 
award dated 19.1.1985. Thereafter the respondents filed a writ petition 
before the High Court seeking directions for a reference under s.28-A of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Counsel for the Union of India conceded 
the High Court that a reference could be made under s.28-A of the Land 
Acquisition Act. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the 
Union of India filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no 
G application when the land is acquired under the Requisitioning and Ac-
quisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. It is a case of total lack of 
jurisdiction, and, therefore, wrong concession made by the counsel does 
not bind the Union of India in that behalf. (155-H, 156-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11933 of 
H 1995 
15-t 
U.0.1. v. BABU SINGH 
155 
From the Judgmeut and Order dated 29.10.87 of the Punjab & A 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2482 of 1987. 
N.N. Goswamy, S.D. Sharma, Anil Katiyar and P. Parmeswaran (NP) 
for the Appellants. 
Ujjagar Singh and Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. Substitution allowed. 
Leave granted. 
In view of the fact that Mrs. Naresh Bakshi learned counsel took 
notice on behalf of the proposed legal representatives of the dtl.ceased 
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 9 the relevancy to give the particulars as phinted 
out by the office, no longer subsists. 
The only question is whether reference under Section 28-A of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable to the land acquired under the 
Defence of India Act. Initially, and extent of 1230.8 acres of land including 
the land of the respondents situated in Bhatinda in Punjab State was 
requisitioned for the purpose of Defence of India. Obviously the acquisi-
tion was under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of the Immov-
able Property Act, 1952. An arbitrator was appointed under Section 8 [3] 
of the Act. The arbitrator in his award dated 19th January, 1985 deter-
mined the amount of compensation. Subsequent thereto, a writ Petition 
seeking direction for reference under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984, was filed in the High Court by 
the respondents. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The counsel appearing for the Union of India in the High Court had 
conceded as mentioned in the impugned order that a reference could be 
made under Section 28-A and the award could be decided within two G 
months from that date. Assailing that order dated 29th October, 1987 of 
the High Court in the abovesaid writ petition, viz, W.P. No. 2482/87, this 
appeal by special leave has been filed. 
Shri Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of 
India contended that Section 28-A has no application to the acquisition of H 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
the land under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property 
Act, 1952. We find force in the contention. Shri Ujjagar Singh, learned 
senior counsel for the respondents contended that since the counsel ap-
pearing for the Union of India has conceded before ti.te High Court the 
State is bound by the concession and that, therefore, there is nothing wrong 
B 
c 
in the order passed by the High Court. It is difficult to accept the conten-
tion. It is a case of total lack of jurisdiction since Section 28-A of the Land 
Acquisition Act has no application when the land is acquired under the 
Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act. Therefore, 
wrong con

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