Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6, 18 and 28-A(1) – Award declared in respect of 136 acres of land, granting compensation @ Rs.25,00,000/-per acre – Applications seeking reference u/s.18 preferred by many landholders but not by the petitioner (holding about 15 acres of land) – Compensation raised to Rs.41,81,500/per acre – Thereafter, petitioner filed application seeking redetermination of compensation u/s.28-A(1)– Application allowed by Collector vide order dated 06.03.2014 granting same benefits to the petitioner in terms of the order of the Reference Court – In the meantime, matters traveled to the High Court, at the instance of the landholders – Compensation enhanced vide order dated 24.05.2016 to Rs.2,80,00,000/-per acre in respect of comparable lands covered under the same notification – SLPs filed by State – Dismissed – Petitioner filed writ petition for quashing the order dated 06.03.2014 and redetermination of compensation in terms of the judgment of the High Court – Dismissed – On appeal, held: During the pendency of the present matter, Supreme Court summoned the original record to apprise itself as to the circumstances in which the application u/s.28A was taken up for consideration by the Collector – Record indicates that the Collector was given to understand that no appeal or further challenge was pending consideration before any superior court and that the matter had attained finality – It is neither the case of the petitioner nor it is even remotely contended that despite being aware of such pending challenge, the Collector proceeded with the matter and decided the application u/s.28A– Petitioner approached the High Court only after the compensation was enhanced by the High Court – There is nothing in the petition as to why the petitioner took so much time to realise that the course undertaken by the Collector was not keeping with the principles laid down by Supreme Court – Explanation that the petitioner became aware for the first time on 03.08.2016 does not appear to be correct – For an entity who held more than 10% of the land under acquisition the way it conducted itself does not inspire confidence– Idea u/s.28A is certainly to extend benefit of equal compensation to landholders who, for some reasons had not preferred appropriate applications for Reference in time but for a company having profile such as the petitioner, inaction followed by delay in filing petition in the High Court, disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief u/Art.226 of the Constitution – High Court justified in rejecting the petition – Constitution of India – Art.226.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court HELD: 1. During the pendency of the present matter, Supreme Court had summoned the original record to apprise itself as to the circumstances in which the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was taken up for consideration by the Collector. The record indicates that the Collector was given to understand that no appeal or further challenge was pending consideration before any superior court and that the matter had attained finality. It is neither the case of the petitioner nor it is even remotely contended that despite being aware of such pending challenge, the Collector had proceeded with the matter and decided the application under Section 28A. It is also not the case that the petitioner had made the Collector aware or brought it to the notice of the office about pendency of such matter/further challenge. The petitioner approached the High Court on 15.11.2016 only after the compensation was enhanced by the High Court to the level of Rs.2,80,00,000/- per acre in respect of comparable lands vide judgment dated 24.5.2016. Again, there is nothing in the petition as to why the petitioner took so much time to realise that the course undertaken by the Collector was not in keeping with the principles laid down by this Court. Looking to the profile of the petitioner which is a limited company, it can certainly be said to be having resources to equip itself with adequate knowledge on the front. The explanation offered by the petitioner in the affidavit pursuant to the direction issued on 06.02.2019 is not satisfactory. The explanation that the petitioner became aware for the first time on 03.08.2016 does not appear to be correct and reliable. Again, if the whole-time Director of the petitioner-company who swore the affidavit, was aware on 03.08.2016 that the compensation stood enhanced by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 24.05.2016, there is no reason why the filing of the writ petition was delayed till 15.11.2016. For an entity who held more than 10% of the land under acquisition the way it conducted itself does not inspire any confidence. The idea under Section 28A is certainly to extend benefit of equal compensation to landholders who, for some reasons had not preferred appropriate applications for Reference in time but for a company having profile such as the petitioner, inaction on the front followed by delay in filing petition in the High Court, disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. [Paras 9, 10] [855-G-H; 856-A-G]
State of Haryana and Anr Etc. v. Moti Sagar and Ors. Etc. Etc. Decision of Supreme Court dated 05.01.2017 in SLP (Civil) Nos.4927-4965 of 2017 @
CC Nos. 23630-23668 of 2016; State of Haryana and Ors. Etc. v. Ram Chander and Anr Etc. Decision of Supreme Court dated 05.09.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.11814-11864 of 2017; Moti Sagar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. Decision of Supreme Court dated 10.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 15015 of 2017;
Bharatsing s/o. Gulabsingh Jakhad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.(2018) 11 SCC 92 ; Babua Ram v. State of U.P. (1995) 2 SCC 689 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 148 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.