LexV. RAMAKRISHNA RAO versus THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 11 S.C.R. 1144 V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO V. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 7655 of 2004) OCTOBER 05, 2010 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: c s. 28A - Land Acquisition - Determination of market value of the acquired land by Reference Court - Appeal against the order pending before High Court - One of the land-owners, who had not invoked s. 18, filing application u/ s.28A(1) seeking compensation at par with other /and-owners 0 - Application allowed - Another application of the land-owners u/s. 287 A(3) seeking reference to the court for fixing fair market value - Permission for reference accorded - Maintainability of the reference made u/s. 28A(3) - Held: The reference made uls. 28A(3) is maintainable - However, the market value of the applicant cannot be higher than the E market value determined in respect of the land of other land- owners - Therefore, direction to decide the application ul s. 28A(3) after the decision by High Court in other pending cases. F G H s. 28A - Aim and object of - Held: Is to ensure that the goal of equality enshrined in the Preamble and Articles 38, 39 and 46 of the Constitution is translated into reality - Constitution of India, 1950 - Preamble and Articles 38, 39 and 46. Land of the appellant, along with other land-owners was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On reference u/s. 18 in respect of the acquired lands, the Reference Court fixed the market value of the lands. The 1144 V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. SINGARENI COLLIERIES 1145 COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. same being challenged in appeal suit, the High Court A remanded the matter to Reference Court to re-determine the market value. Reference court re-determined the market value at ? 30,000/- of Category I land and ? 15,000 of category II Land. Appeal suits were filed again challenging the re-determination, and the same are B pending before High Court. The appellant, who had not invoked Section 18, filed application u/s. 28A(1) for payment of enhanced compensation at par with other land-owners, which was allowed. Thereafter, the appellant filed application u/ C s. 28A(3) for making reference to the court for fixing fair market value of the acquired land. The reference was made. Respondent No. 1 challenged the reference by filing D a writ petition, which was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. The writ appeal against the order was allowed by Division Bench of High Court, holding that a person who gets benefit of higher compensation u/ s. 28A(1) cannot file an application u/s. 28A(3). Therefore, E the instant appeal was filed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. s. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 represents the Legislature's determination to ensure that F the goal of equality enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution and Articles 38, 39 and 46 thereof is translated into reality, at least in the matter of payment of compensation to those who are deprived of their land for the benefit of the State, its instrumentalities/agencies and G even private persons. Section 28A also represents statutory embodiment of the doctrine of equality in matters relating to the acquisition of land. The Act which was enacted in 1894 and was amended after 90 years has the potential of depriving a large segment of the society H 1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R. A i.e. the 'agriculturist' of their only source of livelihood. The scheme of Section 28A provides some solace to this segment of the society by ensuring that such of the land- owners, whose land was acquired under the same notification but who could not, on account of poverty, B ignorance and other disabilities join others in seeking reference uls. 18, get an opportunity to claim compensation at par with others. This section is aimed at removing inequality in the payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land under the same notification. c Therefore, Section 28A has to be interpreted in a manner which would advance the policy of legislation to give an opportunity to the land-owner who may have, due to variety of reasons, not been able to move the Collector for making reference uls. 18 of the Act to get higher 0 compensation, if market value is revised by the Reference Court at the instance of other land-owners, whose land is acquired under the same notification. [Para 9] [1152- D-H; 1153-A-C] Union of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.