2002 (9) TMI 799 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Whether a person whose application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is dismissed on the ground of delay or any other technical ground is entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act? Held that - When an application under Section 18 is not entertained on the ground of limitation, the same not fructifying into any reference, then that would not tantamount to an effective application and consequently the rights of such applicant emanating from some other reference being answered to move an application under Section 28-A cannot be denied. We, accordingly answer question No. l(a) by holding that the dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay would tantamount to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. So far as question l(b) is concerned, this is really the same question, as in question l(a) and, therefore, we reiterate that when an application of a land owner under Section 18 is dismissed on the ground of delay, then the said land owner is entitled to make an application under Section 28-A, if other conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled. The receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application under Section 28-A. If a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collectors with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other land owner s application for reference is answered by the reference Court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. Otherwise, it would amount to adding one more condition, not contemplated or stipulated by the Legislature itself to deny the benefit of substantial right conferred upon the owner.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to "not filing an application" within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Whether a person whose application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is dismissed on the ground of delay or any other technical ground is entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Whether a person who has received the compensation without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and has not filed an application seeking reference under Section 18 is "a person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 28-A.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of Application on Grounds of Delay:
The court examined whether the dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to "not filing an application" within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that the dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay would indeed tantamount to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28-A. The rationale was that if an application under Section 18 is dismissed on the ground of delay, it does not fructify into any reference and thus cannot be considered an effective application. Consequently, the rights of such an applicant to move an application under Section 28-A, when some other reference is answered, cannot be denied.

2. Entitlement to Maintain an Application under Section 28-A:
The court reiterated that when an application of a landowner under Section 18 is dismissed on the ground of delay, the landowner is entitled to make an application under Section 28-A, provided other conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled. This interpretation aligns with the beneficial nature of Section 28-A, which aims to confer a right of making a reference to those who might not have made a reference earlier under Section 18.

3. Definition of "Person Aggrieved":
The court addressed whether a person who has received the compensation without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and has not filed an application seeking reference under Section 18 is "a person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 28-A. The court concluded that the receipt of compensation with or without protest is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application under Section 28-A. If a person has not filed an application under Section 18, then irrespective of whether they received the compensation awarded by the Collector with or without protest, they would be considered a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other landowner's application for reference is answered by the reference court.

Additional Observations:
The court also commented on the interpretation of Section 28-A, emphasizing that the language of the statute should be given its natural and ordinary sense unless it leads to anomalies, injustices, or absurdities. The court noted that the legislative intent behind Section 28-A was to benefit poor and illiterate landowners, and thus, the provisions should be construed liberally to achieve this purpose.

Conclusion:
The court answered the referred questions, holding that the dismissal of an application under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28-A, and such a person is entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A. Additionally, a person who has received compensation without protest and has not filed an application under Section 18 is considered "a person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 28-A and is entitled to make an application when another landowner's reference is answered. The appeals and special leave petitions were directed to be placed before a Bench of two learned judges for disposal.

← Previous Next →