Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)
Union Of India And Anr vs Pradeep Kumari And Ors on 10 March, 1995 cites

Jnan Ranjan Sen Gupta & Ors vs Arun Kumar Bose on 24 July, 1975

A perusal of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 28-A of the Act would show that after an award is made under Part III whereby the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, a right accrues to a person interested in the other land covered by the same notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 who is also aggrieved by the award of the Collector but who had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, to move an application before the Collector for re- determination of the amount of compensation payable to him on the basis of the amount compensation awarded by the court. This application for re- determination of compensation is required to be made within three months from the date of the award of the court. The right to make the application under Section 28-A arises from the award of the court on the basis of which the person making the application is seeking re-determination of the compensation. There is nothing in sub-section (1) of Section 28-A to indicate that this right is confined in respect of the earliest award that is made by the Court after the coming into force of Section 28-A. By construing the expression 'where in an award under this Part' in sub- section (1) of Section 28-A to mean 'where in the first award made by the court under this Part, the word 'first', which is not found in sub-section (1) of Section 28-A, is being read therein and thereby the amplitude of the said provision is being curtailed so as to restrict the benefit conferred by it. In the matter of construction of a beneficient provision it is not permissible by judicial interpretation to read words which are not there and thereby restrict the scope of the said provision. [See : Jnan Ranjan Sen Gupta and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Base, [1975] 2 SCC 526. at p.530.] It is possible to visualise a situation where in the first award that is made by the court after the coming into force of Section 28-A the enhancement b the amount of compensation by the said award is not very significant for the reason that the person who sought the reference was not able to produce adequate evidence in support of his claim and in another reference where the award was made by the court subsequently such evidence is produced before the court and a much higher amount is awarded as compensation in the said award. By restricting the benefit of Section 28-A to the first award that is made by the court after the coming into force of Section 28-A the benefit of higher amount of compensation on the basis of the subsequent award made by the court would be denied "to the persons invoking Section 28-A and the benefit of the said provision would be confined to re-determination of compensation on the basis of lesser amount of compensation awarded under the first award that is made after the coming into force of Section 28-A. There is nothing in the wordings of Section 28-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 21 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Karnail Singh And Ors on 17 November, 1994

We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view expressed in Babua Ram (supra) and Karnail Singh (supra) that application under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation can only be made on the basis of the first award that is made after the coming into force of Section 28-A. In our opinion, the benefit of re-determination of amount of compensation under Section 28-A can be availed of on the basis of any one of the awards that has been made by the court after the coming into force of Section 28-A provided the applicant seeking such benefit makes the application under Section 28-A within the prescribed period of three months from the making of the award on the basis of which re-determination is sought, The first contention urged by Shri Goswamy in support of the Review Petitions is, therefore, rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 51 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1