UNION OF INDIA versus BANT RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 22-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
BANT RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. 
APRIL 22, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
La!ld Acquisitio!l Act, 1894: 
Sectio!ls 3(d), 18, 26, 28A, 54---Compe!lsation-Application 11/s. 28A 
C for redetennillation of-Would !lot lie after the j11dgment of the High Co11rt 
11nder S.54-Wiit petition filed by way of execution-Since order passed by the 
Collector under S.28A is found non-est being devoid of jwisdiction, payment 
of the amoulll even at pain of contempt does not disentitle the Govemment 
to assail the validity of the award. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7757 of 
1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.94 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 10987 of 1998. 
E 
A.S. Nambiar, W.A. Kadri, Anil Katiyar for the Appellants. 
Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Rajiv Garg, N.D. Garg, for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel on both sides. 
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on July 10, 1979. The award under 
Section 11 was made on March 13, 1981. The respondents received the 
G compensation without protest. The dissatisfied claimants moved an ap-
plication under Section 18. On reference, the compensation was enhanced 
under Section 26 on November 6, 1985. Dissatisfied therewith, the 
claimants went in appeal to the High Court. On May 21, 1987, the High 
Court further enhanced the compensation. The respondents filed an ap-
H plication under Section 28-A of the Act on December 4, 1987. The Collec-
618 
U.0.J. v. BANT RAM 
619 
tor determined the compensation based on the judgment of the High Court 
by an award dated February 28, 1989. When the award was called in 
question in writ petition, the High Court by impugned order dated July n, 
1994 in W.P. No. 10987/93 dismissed the petition. Thus, the appeal against 
the said order. 
Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the respondent has 
contended that Section 28A would apply not only when an award is made 
by the Court under Section 26 but also when judgment is made by the High 
Court under Section 54 of the Act. We find no force in this contention. 
Section 28A itself specifically refers to applicability of Chapter III; in other 
words, Chapter III would be applicable to a reference made under Section 
A 
B 
c 
18 to the court. The marginal note indicates redetermination of the com-
pensation on the basis of the award of the court. Section 3( d) defines 
11court
11 to mean a principal civil court of original jurisdiction or a court of 
special Judicial officer. Sub-section (1) of Section 28A envisages "allowing 
applications", i.e., reference application filed under Section 18 in Part III. 
Moreover Section 54 falls in Chapter VITI of the Act. Therefore, Judgment D 
and decree of the appellate court/High Court docs not encompass the 
award of the Court referred to in Section 28A. The controversy is no longer 
res integra. In Babu Ram & 01». v. State of UP. & 01»., [1995] 2 SCC 689 
and hosts of other decisions following that, cover the field. Therefore, the 
conclusion is inevitable that the application· for redetermination of the E 
compensation under Section 28A would not lie after the judgment of the 
High Court under Section 54 of the Act. 
The respondents filed the writ petition for the enforcement of the 
award in question. The writ petition was allowed on November 12, 1992 F 
and in contempt proceedings the counsel appearing for the Union of India 
undertook, at the pain of contempt, to deposit the amounts. On that basis, 
it is contended that the order of the High Court having heen allowed to 
becun1e final, it is not open to the Union of India to resist the award. We 
find no force in the contention. The above writ petition was only by way of 
an execution. Since the order passed by the Collector under Section 28A G 
is found to be non est, being devoid of jurisdiction, the payment of the 
amount, at pain of contempt, or even other\vise, does not disentitlcd the 
Union of India to assail the validity of the award. 
It is then contended that there are !aches on the part of the appel-
H 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A !ants from 1992 to 1996 and that, therefore,· this Court should decline to 
interfere with the matter. We find it difficult to give acceptance to the 
contention. Since the respondents have already filed SLP against the 
original

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