Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is' contended for the State Governments that Section 28-A since speaks of persons "interested" and "aggrieved", a claimant who received compensation without protest, becomes disentitled to make an application under Section 18 because of the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 31. He being a non-protester cannot be an aggrieved person. A claimant who. receives compensation under protest but makes no application under Section 18, becomes a person aggrieved under Section 28-A of the Act and is entitled to seek redetermination for higher compensation. The question of redetermination of compensation would arise only if an award under Section 11 had been made by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector after the Amendment Act had come into force, namely, September 24, 1984. In other words, their contention was that Section 28-A is prospective in operation and has no application to any award made by the Collector/L.A.O., prior to the Amendment Act had come into force. It was also contended that such an application should be made within three months from the date of the award of the court, i.e., civil court on reference under Section 18 and not on each successive award or a decree in appeal. The limitation of three months should be computed from the date of the award of the civil court, first in point of time and that neither the subsequent award under Section 26 or the judgment or decree of the High Court under Section 54 or of this Court, does furnish any cause of action nor does the limitation of three months under Section 28-A start running from the later dates. When an appeal was filed by the State/beneficiary against the award and decree of the civil court, the Collector/L.A.O. has to await the decision of the High Court or of this Court before redetermining the compensation under Section 28A(2). Be it the award made before the Act came into force, or the award of the court made after the Amendment Act has come into force, no application under Section 28-A would lie. The award of the court envisaged under Section 28-A can only be of the civil court made on a reference under Section 18 and not the judgment and decree of the High Court or of this Court. The claimants who did not receive compensation under protest or unsuccessful applicants under Sections 18 or 54 of the Act or under Article 136 etc. are not the persons aggrieved when the compensation was further enhanced under Section 26 or by the High Court under Section 54 or by this Court. It was also contended that the person aggrieved under Section 28-A, must be one who has an interest in the land which is sine qua non to claim for higher compensation. Even one who was handicapped due to illiteracy, ignorance or poverty had to receive the compensation only under protest. Only that class of persons who would have received the compensation under protest could be aggrieved persons to avail of the right to claim redetermination of compensation. Section 28A is transitional one and does not apply to future awards. The Collector when redetermined the compensation under Section 28A(2), the beneficiary being person interested not having accepted the award, such person becomes entitled to seek reference under Section 28-A(3).

7. Shri Harish Salve, the learned senior counsel, who argued for the claimants, contended that when compensation was enhanced by court, be it court of original or appellate jurisdiction, for the land in the neighbourhood of the claimant acquired under the same Notification, such claimant also becomes entitled to receive higher compensation to his land by making an application under Section 28-A in that behalf, the grant of higher compensation would furnish the cause of action even to the non- protester claimant to make an application under Section 28-A(1) for redetermination. Payment of inadequate compensation provides him grievance to seek redetermination. Therefore, he is an aggrieved person, whether received compensation with or without protest or omitted to pursue the right and remedy under Section 18 or 54 or under Article 136. The right to receive adequate compensation is the object of the Amendment Act as it was intended to relieve hardship of the poor or inarticulate claimants who receive inadequate compensation as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill and the financial Memorandum annexed to it. Therefore, whether a claimant received the compensation under protest or without protest, the moment the claimant of the neighbouring land gets higher compensation, he also becomes entitled to make an application under Section 28-A for redetermination. Appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings under Section 18. The limitation begins to run as soon as higher compensation is awarded either by the civil or by the High Court or by this Court. Excluding the time taken for obtaining a copy of the judgment, within three months thereafter, the application in writing should be made for redetermination. As the L.A.O. is enjoined to redetermine the compensation on the basis of the enhanced award of compensation made under Section 26 by the court after September 24, 1984, an award made under Section 11 even before coming into force of Section 28A, would also be liable to be reopened. Each or successive awards or decree of the Court, original or appellate jurisdictions would furnish fresh cause of action to those who had not sought reference under Section 18 or appellate remedies. An unsuccessful applicant for reference under Section 18, who did not avail of appellate remedies, cannot unjustly be denied payment of compensation on parity with his affluent neighbour who had been given higher compensation, be it under Section 26 or 54 of the Act or Article 136 of the Constitution etc. Denial would be invidious discrimination between persons similarly situated, violating Article 14 when the remedy was intended to be given by the legislature to the poor and inarticulate who usually do not take advantage of the remedy of reference to higher forums. Sections 28-A(2) and (3) throw sufficient light in the interpretation of Section 28-A(1), 11, 18 and 31. Payment of equal compensation to all the people having interest in the lands acquired under the same Notification is the quintessence and running thread to avail of the right and the remedy provided for under Section 28-A for redetermination of the compensation by the aggrieved persons. It was also contended that the finality of the disposal of the reference under Sections 18 and 54 or Article 136 crystalises the quantum of compensation payable to the lands under acquisition and that should not only furnish the remedy to lay claim but also starting point to compute the limitation. This beneficial interpretation would subserve the purpose of Section 28-A. A harmonious interpretation to advance the object of Section 28-A should be adopted to achieve the legislative animation of according parity in payment of compensation to all claimants who have an interest in the lands under the acquisition. Restricted interpretation canvassed for the State frustrates the object of the right and remedy given by Section 28-A of the Act. Section 28-A is not a transitional provision but one enacted to give benefit in perpetuity even to non-protester of the right and remedy of redetermination when his neighbour secured higher compensation.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under Sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Section 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18.

15. A bare reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 28-A would indicate that wherein an award under this Part, (Part III consists of Section 18 to 28), Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under s. ll, the persons interested in all other lands covered by the same Notification under Section 4(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector, may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by writing make an application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court requiring that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court. The proviso gives a right to exclude the time taken from the day on which the award was pronounced and the time required to obtain a copy of the award in computation of three months within which the application for redetermination has be made in writing to the Collector under Sub-section (1) of Section 28-A. The basis for redetermination is the award of the Court and the compensation awarded therein. Sub-section (2) thereof enjoins the Collector to issue notice to all the persons interested, i.e. the applicant, the State and the beneficiary, if any, to give them reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry conducted thereon and to make the award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants under Sub-section (1). Sub- section (3) gives a right to the applicant either to accept the award or to accept the compensation under protest. In the latter case he has been given a right under Sub-section (3) to make a written application to the Collector to refer the matter for determination under Section 18 to the Court. The provisions of Sections 18 to 28, as far as may be, apply to such references. Thus, Section 28-A is a complete Code in itself providing substantive right to an interested owner who received compensation under Section 18 without protest for higher compensation, and remedy has been provided to make a written application within the prescribed period. The non-obstante clause lifts the rigour of the bar created by Section 18(1) and the second proviso to Section 31 and makes him eligible to be at par with his neighbour to claim parity for compensation to the land similarly situated as the land covered by the court award.

42. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the view that the respondents are right in their contention. Award under Section 11 is only an offer made by the Collector on behalf of the State and the State is bound by the offer. If the offer is accepted without protest and the claimant receives the compensation under Section 31, the proceedings get concluded and no further steps need be taken under the Act. The claimant, if receives the compensation under protest and makes an application under Section 18 in the prescribed manner within the limitation, the Collector is enjoined to refer the objection under Section 18 to the court and the controversy would be at large, subject to determination by the court. The decision of the court is an award and decree under Section 26 and is conclusive between the parties subject to appeal under Section 54 etc. Thereby the determination of the compensation under Section 26 even without acceptance binds the parties. The offer of the Collector being on behalf of the State and the beneficiary, the State does not get the right to seek a reference under Section 18 against the award of the Collector. The beneficiary is only an interested person to adduce evidence in determining proper compensation. However, the Collector/L.A.O. is its/his agent and the acts of the agent binds the principal-beneficiary. The beneficiary does not stand on a higher footing than the State. This should not be understood to mean that the beneficiary has no right to appeal under Section 54 against the award made under Section 26 or further right to question the decree made in appeal before this Court.