Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 8394 of 1995
PETITIONER:
JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/11/2002
BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2002 Supp(4) SCR 370
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The above appeal has been filed against the order of a Division Bench of
Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 20.11.1987 in Civil Writ Petition No.
8442 of 1987, summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant
challenging the order of the Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust,
Jullundur dated 14.7.1986 made in the purported exercise of powers under
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Amending
Act of 1984. The Lands in question were notified for acquisition and after
observing the due formalities, the Land Acquisition collector passed an
award No.3 of 1978 on 21.12.1978 and possession of the lands were also
taken on 1.2.1979. The 4th respondent herein has sought for reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the enhanced
compensation by a request made on 11.5.1983 as a consequence of which a
reference came to be made on 1.6.1983 to the land Acquisition Tribunal
constituted under the Improvement Trust Act. It is at that stage, on an
application made by the four children of respondent no. 4, they were added
as petitioners 2 to 5 in the land reference case which was originally, as
indicated above, referred at the instance of 4th respondent.
After considering the claims of the respective parties, the Land
Acquisition Tribunal, or. 5.2.1986 held that the reference made to it, so
far as the 4th respondent was concerned could not be maintained since in
the view of the Tribunal it was barred by limitation. The Tribunal was also
of the view that though she had sufficient knowledge of the award in time,
she did not make the claim for reference within the time stipulated
therefor under Section 18. So far as the children of 4th respondent who
have been subsequently impleaded as petitioners 2 to 5 to the reference are
concerned, their claims for enhancement has been upheld and enhanced
compensation, as indicated in the award dated 5.2.1986, came to be awarded
by the Tribunal in their favour. At that stage and taking advantage of the
enhancement granted in favour of those persons, the 4th respondent filed an
application on 26.5.1986 purporting to invoke the powers under Section 28A
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking for redetermination of her
compensation overruling the objections of the appellant, the Land
Acquisition Collector on 14.3.1986 ordered enhanced compensation to her
also with all the benefits that have been granted to petitioners 2 to 5 in
the award dated 5.2.1986. It is on rejection of the challenge to the
determination, by the High Court, as noticed above, the present appeal has
been filed. Heard Mr. Bagga learned senior counsel for the appellant and
Mr. S.M. Sarin, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
The learned senior counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that in
as much as the claim of the 4th respondent came to be rejected by the very
same award dated 5.2.1986, no advantage can be taken by the 4th respondent
who has not challenged that part of the award rejecting her claim for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
availing of the benefit of Section 28A of the Act and that to a case like
the one on hand, section 28A will have no application. The learned counsel
for the 4th respondent relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench
reported in JT (2002) vol. 7 p. 42.
Having regard to the view we purpose to take and the manner of disposal
intended to be given, it is unnecessary for us to even advert to the
relevance or applicability of Section 28A of the Act to the case of the
nature before us. The 4th respondent indisputably is a co-owner alongwith
her children who were added as petitioners 2 to 5 to the award dated
5.2.1986, in which case, even on the first principles of law one co-owner
is entitled to have the benefit of the enhanced compensation given in
respect of the other co-owners in a reference made at his instance in
respect of the land acquired, which belonged to all of them, jointly. So as
far the fact that in this case the 4th respondent’s application for
reference under Section 18 was rejected by the Tribunal ultimately on the
ground that the reference was made on a belated application, does not make
any difference and, is no reason, in our view, to differentiate the claims
of such co-owners whose claims came to be really sustained and that of the
4th respondent, for differential treatment. We are fortified to some extent
in the view expressed above, by the principles laid down by this Court in
the decision reported in AIR (1991) Supreme Court p. 1966 A. Vishwanath
Pillai and Ors. v. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition.
In the light of the above conclusion of ours, and finding that real and
substantial justice have been done to the parties, we decline to interfere
with the order made by the Land Acquisition Collector, giving the benefit
of enhanced compensation to the 4th respondent.
The appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs.