UNION OF INDIA versus HANSOLI DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 324 · Decided: 12-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Reference answered
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
V. 
HANSOLI DEVI & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, M.B. SHAH, DORAISWAMY RAJU, S.N. 
VARIA VA AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 28-A-Scope and ambit of-Held, 
C an application under Section 18 if not considered on ground of limitation. it 
would not tantamount to an effective application-Right of such applicant 
emanating from other reference to move an application cannot be denied. 
Section 28-A-Aggrieved person-Meaning of-Held, the person who 
received compensation but not filed an application for making reference would 
D be aggrieved person-He is entitled to file an application when other 
applications for reference ate answered by the reference court otherwise it 
would amount to adding a condition, not contemplated by the Legislature. 
Interpretation of Statutes: Statues-Anomalies, injustices and 
absurdities-Court may give meaning which would adhere to the purpose of 
E statutes-However, when its language is unambiguous, it would not be open 
to the Courts to adopt hypothetical construction on the ground of consistency 
with the object and policy of the Statute. 
F 
Words and Phrases: 'effective application'-Meaning of in the context 
of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
A two-Judge Bench of this Court formulated the following questions 
pertaining to application/interpretation of Section 28-A of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 for consideration by a Larger Bench. 
I. (a) Whether dismissal of an application seeking reference under 
G Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to "not filing an appHcation" 
within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 
(b) Whether a person whose application under Section 18 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 is dismissed on the ground of delay or any other 
H technical ground is entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A 
324 
--
U.0.1. v. HANSOLI DEVI 
325 
of the Land Acquisition Act? 
2. Whether a person who has received the compensation without 
protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and has 
not filed an application seeking reference under Section 18 is "a person 
aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 28-A? 
Answering the questions referred to it, the Constitution Bench of the 
Court 
HELD: 1.1 The genesis of the dispute can be referred to Babua Ram 
and Ors. v. State U.P. and Anr. A Bench of two Judges came to hold 'that 
A 
B 
the period of three months prescribed under Section 28-A of the Land C 
Acquisition Act, for making an application for re-determination of 
compensation must be computed from the date of earlier award of the 
Court made under Section 26 and not from the date of Judgment and 
decree of the Court of appeal. It was also held that successive awards made 
by the reference court at different times in respect of the land covered by D 
the same notification do not furnish a fresh cause of action. A Bench of 
two Judges in Kamai/ Singh' case reiterated these views. The views 
expressed in these two judgments, however, stood over-ruled by a three 
Judge Bench in Union of India and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari and Ors. It was 
held that the benefit of re-determination of the amount of compensation 
under Section 28-A, can be availed of, on the basis of any one of the awards E 
that has been made by the Court after coming into force of Section 28-A 
and the period of limitation of three months would start from the date of 
making of the award on the basis of which re-determination is sought. It 
was felt that there is nothing in sub-section (1) of Section 28-A to indicate 
that the right is confined in respect of the earlier award that is made by F 
the Court. By restricting the benefit of Section 28-A to the first award, 
the benefit of higher amount of compensation on the basis of the 
subsequent award made by the Court would be denied to the persons, and 
that there is nothing in the wordings of Section 28-A to indicate that the 
legislature intended to confer a limited benefit. [331-A-E; 331-F; G) 
Babua Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., [1995) 2 SCC 689; 
Union of India and Ors. v. Kamai/ Singh and Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 728 and 
G 
Union of India and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari and Ors., (19951 2 SCC 736, 
·-, 
referred to. 
2.1. It is a cardinal principle of construction of statute that when H 
326 ; 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A ·language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the Court must -
g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.