Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
D. KRISHNA VENI & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (2) 734 JT 1995 (2) 512
1995 SCALE (1)683
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1
of 1894 for short ‘the Act’ was published on August II,
1971 acquiring about 700 acres of land in Golabandha Buxi
Palli, Vikrampur in Ganjam Dist of Orissa State. By award
dated October 18, 1976 the land Acquisition Officer
determined the market value. On reference under s. 1 8, the
learned subordinate Judge confirmed the award of the
Collector at the rate of Rs.80/- per fruit bearing tree and
Rs. 60/- per non-fruit bearing tree as full value in
addition to the compensation to the land by his award and
decree dated August 21, 1986. The appellants did not carry
the matter in appeal. When others filed the appeal under
s.54 of the Act, the High Court had enhanced the
compensation to the fruit bearing tree at Rs. 990/- and Rs.
650/- for non-fruit bearing tree by its judgment and decree
dated December 12, 1989. Thereafter, the appellants filed
an application under s.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on
May 23 1990 for redetermination. The Land Acquisition
Officer dismissed the application and thereafter the High
Court by its order dated February 8, 1993 confirmed the same
in O.J.C. No.965/92. Thus this appeal by special leave.
3. It is contended that when the High Court awarded higher
compensation by operation of s.28-A of the Land Acquisition
Act the appellants also are entitled to the same benefit.
The point is now squarely covered by two judgments of this
Court in Scheduled Castes Co-operative Land Own in Society
Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors.reported in AIR 1991
SC 738 and Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. &
513
Anr. reported in JT 1994 (7) SC 377. Therefore, the
appellants having failed to avail of the remedy of appeal
and having already availed the remedy of reference under s.
18, they are not entitled to seek redetermination of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
compensation on the basis of award of the High Court
granting enhanced compensation. Section 28-A would apply to
the claimants who received the compensation without protest
and faced with statutory bar of reference and would not
apply to those who had already availed the remedy of
reference and got no benefit or lesser benefit thereunder.
Equally the bar of res judicata clearly would apply to the
appellants. The application under s.28A is, therefore, not
maintainable. The Collector and the High Court rightly
refused to grant the amount on par with the judgment of the
High Court.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
514