9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 regarding the limitation period for making an application for re-determination of compensation. Analysis: 1. The issue in consideration pertains to Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, specifically the starting point of the limitation of three months for making an application for re-determination of compensation. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari and others, which established six conditions for seeking re-determination of compensation. These conditions include the requirement to move the application within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which re-determination is sought. 2. The Court emphasized that the cause of action for moving the application under Section 28-A arises from the award on the basis of which re-determination of compensation is sought. The limitation for such application begins to run only from the date of the award, as clarified in previous judgments. 3. The Court expressed disagreement with the views expressed in Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. and Union of India & Ors. v. Karnail Singh & Ors., which held that the limitation period starts from the date of the first award made on a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 4. The Court noted a dissent between the three judges Bench and the two judges Bench judgments regarding the computation of the limitation period. The two judges Bench held that the limitation period begins from the date of the first award made on a reference under Section 18, while the three judges Bench emphasized that it starts from the court's award under Section 18 on the basis of which re-determination is sought. 5. Subsequently, in Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodrigues and another v. Land Acquisition Collector and another, a three judges Bench observed that the limitation period must be computed from the date of the court's award under Section 18 for re-determination. 6. In State of Tripura & Anr. v. Roop Chand Das & Ors., a two judges Bench raised questions regarding the interpretation of Section 28-A, particularly whether each successive award or judgment gives cause of action to file an application under Section 28-A. 7. Due to the conflicting views and the complexity of the issues involved, the Court decided that a larger Bench of at least five Judges is required to examine the proper interpretation of Section 28-A on the issue of limitation. The Court issued notices to the respondents for further proceedings. 8. The Court acknowledged additional questions raised by the Bar but concluded that the questions from previous decisions would cover the field for resolving the disputes. The need for a larger Bench to address the issues raised in the case was emphasized for the benefit of adjudication and due to the pendency of various related matters before the Court.
|
