Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NANAKCHAND PYARMAL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/11/1995
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
was published on February 4, 1970 acquiring a large extent
of land. The Collector made the award and paid compensation
which was accepted by the respondents without protest. It
would appear that one of the claimants covered under the
same notification sought reference under Section 18 and the
District Judge, Raigarh at Alibag in Reference No. 183/86
enhanced the compensation to Rs.10/- per square meter by his
award and decree dated November 6, 1987. Against the said
award and decree, the State carried First Appeal No.1038/88
which was admitted on February 16, 1989 and ad interim stay
of the award and decree of the District Court was granted
subject to certain conditions.
The respondents thereon filed an application under
Section 28A (1) on February 2, 1988 for redetermination of
the amount of compensation to their lands on the basis of
the said award of the District Judge. It would appear from
the record that the Collector made a draft award and
referred the matter to the State Government for approval. At
that stage the respondents filed a writ petition in the High
Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned
order dated August 24, 1992 directed the Land Acquisition
Officer to declare the award by the end of November 1992.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
In view of the fact that the award of the Reference
Court, referred to hereinbefore, is already the subject
matter of the appeal pending decision in the High Court,
appropriate course would be to keep the reference
application made under Section 28A (1) pending till disposal
of the appeal in the High Court. The Collector shall take
action only on the basis of the judgment that may be
rendered by the High Court. Until then, the matter be kept
pending. The writ petition stands dismissed subject to the
above direction.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2