Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 18, 28-A – Enhancement of compensation – Appellants awarded compensation for the land acquired for Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway – Reference u/s.18 by similarly circumstanced land-owners for enhancement of compensation and the same was dismissed – However, the High Court allowed the Regular First Appeal and enhanced the compensation in respect of the land covered by the same notification under which the appellants’ land also covered – Subsequently, the appellants did not file Reference but filed an application u/s.28-A within a period of three months from the order of the High Court – LAC held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the order passed by the High Court and enhanced the compensation payable to the appellants as awarded to similarly circumstanced land-owners – Thereagainst, writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court relying on Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai’s case and the order passed by the LAC was set aside holding that the application u/s.28-A can only be filed within a period of three months from any judgment of the Reference Court u/s.18, arising from the same acquisition but not from the date of judgment of this Court or the High Court – Correctness: Held: An earlier decision of a Bench of particular strength would be binding on the subsequent Benches of this Court having the same or lesser number of judges – A decision or judgment can be said to be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench – Limitation for moving the application u/s.28-A will begin to run only from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of the compensation is sought – Application of the appellants u/s.28-A is within a period of three months from the order passed by the High Court – Judgment rendered in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai’s case would reveal that the said case did not take note of the earlier view taken by three judges of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari and Others’s case – Judgment in Pradeep Kumari and Others case has been rendered after considering the relevant provisions of the Statute and the principles of interpretation – However, the judgment in the case of Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai’s case is a short judgment only referring to the text of s.28-A(1) – Statement of Objects and Reasons of s.28-A would reveal that the object underlying the enactment of the said provision is to remove inequality in the payment of compensation for same or similar quality of land – Said provision is for giving benefit to inarticulate and poor people not being able to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court u/s.18 – This is sought to be achieved by providing an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered by the same notification to seek redetermination once any of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court u/s.18 – Same benefit would be available to the other landholders u/s.28-A – s.28-A being a beneficent legislation, the principle of interpretation to be adopted is which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it – Thus, the judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside, and the order of the LAC is upheld. [Paras 15, 16, 19, 21, 22-25] Per incuriam – Rule of per incuriam – Judgment, when per incuriam:
Held: Decision or judgment can be said to be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench. [Para 21] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.28-A – Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court – Invocation of the provisions of s.28-A(1) – Conditions to be satisfied – Stated – Explanation of Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others’s case. [Paras 11-14]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.