VENKAMMA AND ORS. versus SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LA) UNIT-IV JANAGAREDDIGUDEM, W.G. DISTRICT, ELUGU, AP.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 16-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D. VENKAMMA AND ORS. 
v. 
SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LA) UNIT-IV JANAGAREDDIGUDEM, 
W.G. DISTRICT, ELUGU, AP. 
NOVEMBER 16, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
S.28A-Referenc~When could be mad~Not when compensation 
awarded is accepted without protest. 
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of 
Rs. 4,500 per acre and the appellant accepted the amount without protest. 
Other claimants had protested and sought reference under section 18 of 
D 
the Act. The Civil Court, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12,000 per 
acre. On further appeal by the State, and cross-objections of the claimants, 
the High Court, allowed the cross-objections and determined the compen-
sation at Rs. 20,000 per acre. Based thereon, an application under section 
28-A of the Act was filed seeking redetermination of the compensation and 
E 
payment of the additional benefits. The application was rejected by the 
Land Acquisition Officer. When writ petition was filed in the High Court, 
a Single Judge directed redetermination of the compensation under section 
28-A. 011 appeal, the High Court held that the reference under section 28-A 
was not maintainable. Hence this appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Reference under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act 
could be made only on the basis of the award and decree of the Reference 
Court under Section 26 on a reference under section 18 but within limita-
tion prescribed under the proviso to Section 28A(l). In the instant case, · 
G 
the application under Section 28A, therefore, would not lie. [441-D-E] 
Union of India & Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc., [1989] 
3 SCR 316 at 339 followed. 
State of Punjab v. Raghubir Singh & Ors., decided by S.C. on February 
H 28, 1995 referred to. 
438 
D. VENKAMMA v. SPL.TEHSILDAR (LA) UNIT-IV 
439 
2. The judgment and decree of the High Court enhancing the com-
A 
pensation under Section 23(1) does not provide a right or cause of action 
to make a written application under Section 28-A seeking re-determination 
of the compensation on the basis of the compensation awarded by the 
Court under reference under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the applica-
tion made under Section 28-A is not maintainable. [441-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11220 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.93 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.A. No. 117 of 1993. 
D. Prakash Reddy and Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, for the appellants. 
G. Prabhakar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
B 
c 
D 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
(for short, "the Act") acquiring an extent of 18 acres 7 cents of land 
belonging to the appellants, was published on January 3, 1980 along with 
the lands of other persons. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award E 
dated October 31, 1981 determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,500 
per acre. The appellant accepted the amount without protest. Other 
claimants had protested and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. 
The Civil Court, by award and decree dated November 21, 1983, enhanced 
the compensation to Rs. 12,000 per acre. On further appeal by the State, 
F 
in AS. No. 1483 of 1984 and cross-objections of the claimants, the High 
Court, by judgment and decree dated February 1, 1989, allowed the cross-
objections and determined the compensation at Rs. 20,000 per acre. Based 
thereon, an application under Section 28-A of the Act was filed on May 
16, 1989 seeking redetermination of the compensation and payment of the 
additional benefits. The application was rejected by the Land Acquisition G 
Officer by his order dated June 1, 1991. When writ petition was filed in the 
High Court, the learned Single Judge directed redetermination of the 
compensation under section 28A. On appeal, the High Court in Writ 
Appeal No. 117 of 1993, by judgment and order dated August 20, 1993, 
held that the reference under section 28-A was not maintainable. Thus this H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
appeal by special leave. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Section 28-A of the Act speaks of redetermination of the amount of 
compensation on the basis of the "award of the Court" and provides that 
when the Court allows any amount in excess of the amount awarded by the 
Collector under Section 11, the person or persons interested in all other 
land covered by the notif
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.