LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus PRADEEP KUMARI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' y UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. PRADEEP KUMARI AND ORS. M..<\RCH 10, 1995 [KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 28-A-Awards made after inser- tion o/S.88-A-Period of 3 months not to be counted from the earliest award- To be counted from award on which claim is based--lnterest can be granted A B by the Collector on additional compensation. C The lands of the respondents were acquired for Beas Dam Project vide various Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acqui~ition Act and awards were made by the Collector. Certain other persons whose lands were also acquired under the same notification sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and on such reference, the Court awarded additional D amounts to such persons. Few of such references to the Court were disposed of by the Court after 24.9.1984, that is, after the enactment of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 ·by which Section 28-A was introduced in the Act. The earliest award after the amendment was made by the Court on 27 .12.1984. E The respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Collector claiming the benefit of additional amount of compensation under Section 28-A. The Collector awarded additional amount of compensation on the F basis of one such award of the Court dated 21.2.1987. The writ petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the Collector was dismissed. Respondent No. 2 on the other hand, filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act for enhancement of compensation claiming the benefit of the decision of the High Coui:t in R.F.A.166of1977. The Collec- G tor dismissed the application on the ground that the benefit of Section 28-A is available only on the basis of an award of the reference court under the Act and not on the basis of any judgment of the High Curt. Respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition 'against the order of the Collector in the High Court contending that if she is not entitled to the benefit of the Judgment H 703 704 ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R. A of the High Court, she may be given the benefit of the award of the reference Court under Section 28-A. The writ petition was disposed of alongwith the writ petition of Respondent No. 1 and the High Court allowed the writ petition of Respondent No. Z. The petitioners filed appeals against the aforesaid orders of the High B Court which were dismissed. Thereupon they filed these Review Petitions. The petitioners contended that (1) the benefit of Section 28-A could be extended only if the application is made within three months from the date of the first award made by the reference court after the Amendment C Act. As the applications by the respondents were made more than three months after the date of the first award i.e. 27.12.1984, the applications were barred by limitation. Reliance was placed upon decisions of two Judge bench of this court in Babua Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., JT [1994) 7 SC 377 and Union of India v. Kamai/ Singh, [1995) 7 SCALE 21. (2) The Collector was not competent to award interest on the additio~al D amount of compensation and only the Court is competent to do so under Section 28 of the Act. Dismissing the Review Petitions, the Court, HELD: 1. The object underlying the enactment of Section 28-A of E uind Acquisition Act is to remove inequality in the payment of compensa- tion for the same or similar quality of land arising on account of inarticu- late and poor people not being able to take advantage of the right of the refennce to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. Section 28-A is, therefore, in .the nature of a beneficient provision intended to remove F inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people who are . not able to take advantage of right of reference to the civil court. The provisions of Section 28-A should, therefore, be construed keeping in view the object underlying the said provision. [717-B-E] 2. The right to make application under Section 28-A arises from the G award of the court on the basis of which the person making the application is seeking re-determination of the · compensation. There is nothing in Section 28-A (1) to indicate that this right is confined in respect of the earliest award that is made by the Court after the coming into force of Section 28-A. In the matter of construction of a beneficent provision it is H not permissible by judicial inter
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.