STATE OF ORISSA & ORS v. CHITRASEN BHOI

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 558

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI, B.S. CHAUHAN

Case summary

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS v. CHITRASEN BHOI.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 14 (ADDL. ) S. C. R 558 7 STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. CHITRASEN BHOI (Civil Appeal No. 1271 of 2002) WITH I. A. NO. 3 OF 2002 SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ. ] j. LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 r s. 28-A - Application for re-determination of I compeosation - Scope of - High Court holding the application to have been filed within time and directing the o Collector to decide the same if found maintainable - Held: + Application having been filed within 3 months of the award of the reference court, no interference with the order of the High Court on the ground of limitation required - Therefore, the question of limitation is not to be agitated before Land Acquisition Collector - Legislature has carved out an exception in the form of s. 28-A and made a special provision to grant some relief to a particular class of. society, namely, poor, illiterate, ignorant and inarticulate people - It is made only for "little Indians" - The provisions of s.

28-A refer to the "person interested" which means the original owner and that original owner interested must further be a person aggrieved by the award of the Collector - The Land Acquisition Collector shall consider the issue of maintainability of the application filed by respondent in the light of the settled legal proposition without considering the issue of limitation - Newly added respondents, namely /CAR and CIFWA shall also. be heard at the time of disposal of the application filed by respondent no. 1 - Limitation. Union of India & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumari & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 736; State of Tripura & Anr. vs. Roopchand Das & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 421; Mewa Ram vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 45, relied on Union of India vs. Bantram (dead) by LRs. (1996) 4 SCC 537; Union of India & Ors. vs. Kamai/ Singh & Ors. (1995) 2 8 SCC 728; Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 730; Babua Ram & Ors. vs. State of U. P. & Anr.

(1995) 2 SCC 689; G. Krishna Murthy & Ors. vs. State of Orissa, (1995) 2 SCC 733; D Krishna Vani &Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1995) 2 SCC 735; Union of India &Anr. vs. Pr award made by civil court prior to 24. 9. 1984. The limitation of three months for making application for redetermination of . compensation is to be computed from the date of earliest award made by the civil court. ~ However, a three Judges' Bench of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 736 overruled the judgment in Union of India v. Kamail Singh (supra) to the extent that application for redetermination may be filed within three months from the date of first award of the Reference Court observing that intention of the Legislature was not to restrict the benefif of the amended law, to the extent that a claimant has to apply within limitation from the date of the first award of the Reference Court.

Thus, it is permissible even to ,-1 make an application on the basis of a subsequent Reference Court Award. However, it must be within the limitation from the date of making of the said subsequent award. This view was '. ) further clarified by this Court in the State of Tripura & Anr. v. Roopchand Das & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 421. 10. In the instant case, admittedly the application was filed -t within 3 months from the date of reference award, the applicant - Respondent No. 1 had relied upon. The appellant had not laid down any factual position as under what circumstances the application was time barred. Therefore, no interference is required on_ this ground. 11. Admittedly, the High Court has directed the Land Acquisition Collector to decide the application under Section 28A of the Act provided it is found to be maintainable, however, the issue of limitation would not be agitated/ considered.

In such a fact situation the question does arise as to whether the Land Acquisition Collector can still examine the maintainability of the application and if so, on what grounds? 12. The scope of provisions of Section 28-A of t~e Act was considered by this Court in Mewa Ram vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 45, and the Court placed emphasis particularly on para 2 (ix) of the object and reasons of the Amendment Act, 1987 which provided for a special provision for inarticulate and poor people to apply for re-determination of the compensation amount on the basis of the court award in a land acquisition reference filed by comparatively affluent land owner. The Court observed as under: "Section 28-A in terms does not apply to the case of the petitioners..... They do not belong to that class of society for whose benefit the provision is intended and meant, i. e.

inarticulate and poor people who by rftason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under Sectior"! 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.... " (Emphasis added). 13. This Court approved and reiterated the law laid down in. Mewa Ram (Supra) in Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land ~·. Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 1991 SC 730. In Babua Ram & Ors. vs. State of U. P. & Anr. (1995) 2 SCC 689, the Apex Court again reiterated the law laid down in Mewa Ram (Supra) observing as under:- + "Legislature made a discriminatory policy between the poor and inarticulate as one class of persons to whom the benefit of Section 28-A was to be extended- and comparatively affluent who had taken advantage of the reference under Section 18 and the latter as a class to which the benefit of Section 28-A was not extended.

Otherwise, the phraseology of the language of the non-obst~nte clause would have been differently worded ..... It is true that the legislature intended to relieve hardship to the poor, indigent and inarticulate interested persons who generally failed to avail the reference under Section 18 which is an existing bar and to remedy it, Section 28-A was enacted giving a right and remedy for redetermination ........ The legislature appears to have presumed that the same state of affairs continue to subsist among the poor and inarticulate persons and they generally fail to avail the right under sub-:-section (1) of Section 18 due to poverty or ignorance or avoidance of expropriation. " (Emphasis added). 14. Thus, it is apparent that the legislature has carved outan exception in the form of Section 28-A and made a special provision to grant some relief to a particular class of society, namely poor, illiterate, ignorant and inarticulate people. It is made only for "little Indians".

The provisions of Section 28-A refer to the "person interested" which means the original owner and that original owner interested must further be a person aggrieved by the award of the Collector. In G. Krishna Murthy & Ors. vs. State of Orissa, (1995) 2 SCC 733; D Krishna Vani & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1995) 2 SCC 735; Union of India & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumari & Ors. , AIR 1995 SC 2259; and U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. State of U. P. & Ors. , (1995) 2 SCC 766, it has been held by this Court that a person who prefers Section 18 reference cannot maintain an application under Section 28-A of the Act. The benefit of such an exceptional rule cannot be extended to such persons as it would be against the public policy. In Union of India vs. Shivkumar Bhargava &Ors. , AIR 1995 SC 812, this Court observed that the benefit of.

the State policy which confers certain beneficial rights on a particular class of person is meant only for the person whose land was acquired and by necessary implication "the subsequent purchaser was elbowed out from the policy and became disentitled to the benefit or the State policy. 15. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments a similar view. has also been taken by this Court in Kendriya Karamchari1Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd. , Noida vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , (2009) 1 SCC 754. 16. In Des Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. , (2004) 7 SCC 753 it was held by this Court that if a person has applied under Section 18 of the Act and pursued the matter further, he is not entitled to maintain the application under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation. The Court further heldthat it is mandatory to file the application within prescribed limitation, which runs from the date of the Award under Section 18 of the Act.

While deciding the said case the Court placed ~ reliance upon its earlier judgments, including Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. (supra). 17. In Union of India vs. Munshi Ram & Ors. , AIR 2006 SC 1716, this Court has laid down the law that such an· application is maintainable provided a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act. The Court held that Section 28-A seeks to confer the benefit of enhanced compensation on those owners who did not seek Reference under·Section 18 of the Act. In fact, under the said provision they are entitled for enhanced compensation decreed by the Reference Court and further as the decreed amount stands modified in appeal by the higher Courts. 18. Therefore, it is evident that an application under Section 28-A has to be dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer keeping in mind the aforesaid settled legal propositions. ~- 19.

Thus, it is evident that t~e submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the Land Acquisition Collector is bound to enhance the compensation without considering any other fact, as the application has been held to have been filed within limitation, is preposterous. . f. ...... _ 20. In view of the above, we do not find anY- Jorce in the I appeal. The appeal stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Land Acquisition Collector shall consider the issue of maintainability of the application filed by ~ respondent in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition expeditiously without considering the issue of limitation. Needless to say that newly added respondents, namely Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) & Central Institute of Fresh Water Acqua-Culture (CIFWA) shall also be heard at the time of disposal of the application filed by respondent no. 1. No cost. RP. Appea'I dismissed. ..