UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 17-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v; 
KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 17, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VEKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, I 894 as amended by Land Acquisition 
(Amendment) Act 68of1984: 
Section 28-A-Prospective in operation-Does not furnish any right to 
C 
claimants to make application after the coming into force of the Amending 
Act-Latter award does not furnish fresh right or cause of action-
Awarding of additional statutory benefits-Neither the Collector nor the 
High Court has jurisdictii:Jn. 
D 
Constitution of India, I 950 : 
Articles I 36, 142-Settling law in exercise of discretion-Such law so 
settled should be clear and operational instead of being kept vague so that 
it could become a binding precede·~t in all similar cases to arise in future. 
Certain lands in Bhatinda district were acquired, and the Collector 
E 
made an award determining the market value, based on the 
classification of the land, between Rs. 4500 and 16,000 per acre. The 
respondents had accepted the compensation without protest and did 
not seek any reference. Some other claimants secured reference. The 
Additional District Judge determined the compensation enhancing the 
market value ranging from Rs. 5,625 to Rs. 20,000 per acre. On appeal, 
F 
the High Court determined the market value at Rs. 15 to Rs. 17 per sq. 
yd. 
The respondents made an application under section 28-A of the 
Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector redetermined 
the market value, but did not award solatium and interest as also the 
G 
additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The 
respondents made another application enclosing another award made 
by the District Court in another reference, and sought statutory 
benefits. Since it was denied, respondents filed a writ petition which 
was allowed by a Single Judge, who directed the award of additional 
benefits. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, and the Union of 
H 
India has preferred the present appeal. 
584 
U. 0. I. v. KARNAIL SINGH 
585 
Appellants contended that though the award made by the Collector A 
under Section 28-A was not separately challenged, the appellants had 
in fact impugned its validity before the Division Bench; that since the 
Amendment Act came into force on September 24, 1984, the earliest 
reference made on July 31, 1979 should be the relevant and any 
subsequent ctward could not furnish any cause of action to file an B 
application under Section 28-A; and therefore the award made under 
Section 28-A was without jurisdiction and a nullity: 
. Respondents contended that as held in Babua Ram v. State of U.P. 
(1994) Supp 4 SCR 148 the Amendment Act 68of1984 was prospective 
in operation and any award made by the reference court after the said C 
Amendment Act came into force would furnish the cause of action to 
the claimants for making an application within three months 
thereafter; that the award was made in another reference and within 
three months thereafter, the respondents were entitled to file an 
application under Section 28-A; that even otherwise, when all the D 
claimants had been awarded enhanced compensation, in equity the 
respondents were also entitled to party in payment of compensation; 
and that the award made under Section 28-A(2) having been allowed to 
become final, it was not open to the appellants to claim that the said 
award was illegal or without jurisdiction. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1. It would be clear that cause of action for making an 
application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act would arise 
when an award has been made by the Civil Court, on a reference under 
section 18, enhancing the compensation over and above the amount F 
awarded by the Collector in his award under section 11 and the earliest 
of the successive awards would furnish the starting period of the 
limitation of three months as provided in the proviso to section 28-A(l). 
It is seen that the earliest award was made on July 31, 1979 by which 
date the Amendment Act had not come into force. The Land G 
Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 has given prospective 
operation to section 28-A from September 24, 1984. Therefore, it does 
not furnish any right to the claimants to make any application after the 
Act has come into force. The latter award dated March IS, 1990 does 
not give any fresh right or cause of action to file an application under 
section 2,8-A (1). Therefore, the judgment and order of this Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.