UNION OF INDIA versus MUNSHI RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 01-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
MUNSHI RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
MARCH I, 2006 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND Al TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 28-A-- -Award of compensation 
under-Entitlement of non-applicants-Held: Non-applicants (and non-
appellants) are entitled to same compensation which applicants finally got in 
C appeal to Supreme Court--They cannot stick to larger claim given by reference 
Court. 
Words and Phrases--Decree-Meaning o/-Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908-Section 2(2). 
D 
The Land Acquisition Collector passed awards of compensation on 
acquisition of certain lands. Aggrie\'ed claimants sought reference under 
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Reference Court enhanced the 
compensation amounts. Dissatisfied Claimants successfully mo\'ed High 
Court for further enhancement of 1:ompensation. Against this, Union of 
E India filed the SLPs. This Court allowed the SLPs and reduced the 
compensation amount. 
During pendency of SLPs, respondents who were not claimants in 
pre\'ious proceedings filed application under Section 28A claiming 
compensation at the same rates as were awarded to other claimants, 
p pursuant to the decree of reference Court. The Collector redetermined 
the compensation payable to the respondents. 
G 
H 
Union of India challenged these redetermination orders passed by 
Collector by filing writ petitions which were dismissed as time barred. 
The present appeal is filed against this order. 
It was contended on behalf of Union of India that the 
redetermination of the Compensation payable must be on the basis of the 
decree as modified by the High Court and further modified by this Court 
in appeal and not on the basis of the decree as originally passed by the 
816 
U.0.1. '' MUNSHI RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. 
817 
_). 
. fleference Court. 
A 
• 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The Union of India is right in its submission that the 
amount payable under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is 
the amount which is finally payable by way of compensation to the owners B 
of the land who challenged the award of the Collector and claimed 
reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said provision seeks to confer 
the benefit of enhanced compensation even on those owners who did not 
seek reference under Section 18. It cannot be that those who secure a 
· certain benefit by reason of others getting such benefit should retain that c 
benefit, even though the others on the basis of whose claim compensation 
was enhanced are deprived of the enhanced compensation to an extent. 
This would be rather inequitable and unfair. Moreover, even if it be that 
the compensation payable to claimants who have applied under Section 
28A of the Act, is the enhanced compensation decreed by the Reference 
Cou_rt, the decree means the decree of the Reference Court as modified in D 
appeal by higher Courts. Otherwise, an incongruous position may emerge 
that a person who did not challenge the award of the Collector and did 
not claim a reference under Section 18 of the Act would get a higher 
compensation than one who challenged the award of the Collector and 
claimed a reference, but in whose case a higher compensation determined 
by the Reference Court was subsequently reduced by superior Court. E 
There can be no dispute that those claiming higher compensation and 
claiming reference under Section 18 of the Act are bound by the decree 
as modified by the superior Court in appeal. The principle of restitution 
must apply to them. For the same reason, the same consequence must 
visit others who have been given benefit of enhanced compensation F 
7 
pursuant to the decree passed in reference proceeding on the application 
of others. (820-G-H; 821-A-D) 
Union of India v. Mangatu Ram and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 159, referred 
to. 
2. It was contended that after the order of redetermination was G 
passed, Union of India would have challenged this order, and since it 
-7 
failed to do so, it lost its right to challenge that order. The submission 
overlooks the basic plea of the Union of India that at the stage when the 
order of redetermination was passed under Section 28A of the Act that 
· order was fully justified and any further redetermination could be claimed H 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A only if there was variation of the decree and the amount awarded by way 
of compensation was reduced. In the instant case that happened in the 
year 1997, and therefore, in one sense it
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.