9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Collector made an award under Section 11 on June 11, 1975 determining the market value, based on the classification of the land, between ₹ 4,500/- to ₹ 16,000/- per acre. The respondents had accepted the compensation without protest and did not seek any reference under Section 18. Some other claimants sought and secured reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Addl. Dist. Judge by his award dated July 13, 1979 determined the compensation enhancing the market value to ₹ 5,625/- to ₹ 20,000/-per acre. On appeal, the High Court had modified the award. Ultimately on appeal, this Court, determined the market value at ₹ 15/- to ₹ 17/- per sq. yd. by judgment dated August 24, 1987. The respondents made a w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of action to file the application under Section 28-A. The award made under Section 28-A, therefore, is without jurisdiction and a nullity. It is also contended that the High Court committed illegality in making the award and failed to correct the manifest error of law committed by the Collector in his award made under Section 28-A. Shri R.K. Jain, learned Senior counsel for the respondents, contends that in Babua Ram v. State of U.P. Civil Appeal No. 563/94, by judgment dated October 4, 1994, this Court has held that the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 is prospective in operation and that, therefore, any award made by the reference court after the Amendment Act has come into force would furnish the cause of action to the claimants to make an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application in writing is made to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the civil court of original jurisdiction, excluding the requisite time taken to obtain a copy of the award. In other words, the right and remedy provided by Section 28-A(2) stands extinguished with the expiry of three months from the date of the award under Section 26. It is true that in a given set of facts, there could be more than one reference under Section 18 at the behest of different claimants of the lands covered by Section 4(1) Notification and the court may make successive awards at various times. Compensation given in the respective awards may vary and may be higher than the one given in an earliest award. In the teeth of the expre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptember 24, 1984. If an owner of the land or person interested in compensation of the land acquired by the same Notification under Section 4(1) had not sought reference under Section 18 in respect to an award made under Section 11 by the Collector/LAO, but if on a reference made under Section 18 prior to September 24, 1984 in respect of land covered by the same notification any award made under Section 26, prior to the Amendment Act had come into force, the award under Section 11 is not liable to be reopened for redetermination of compensation even though three months' period has not expired by September 24, 1984 for to hold otherwise would amount to giving retrospective operation to Section 28-A. Any other non-protester claimant wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it does not furnish any cause of action. This was also the view of another three Judges Bench of this Court in Scheduled Castes Co-operative Land Owning Society, Bhatinda v. Union of India. (1991)2SCC174 . Therefore, we are of the firm view that the judgment and order of this Court enhancing the compensation on August 24, 198/7 does not furnish any cause of action to make the application under Section 28-A. 6. It is true that in another reference, the civil court had enhanced the compensation or March 15, 1990 after the Amendment Act has come into force. Since the earliest award on reference under Section 18 was made on July 31, 1979, by which date Section 28A was not in force or the period of three months had already expired, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory benefits would be granted when compensation was enhanced by the Court over and above the compensation determined by the Collector. Thereby, the award of the statutory benefits is not independent of the award or in is substitution. Therefore, when the claimants sought for additional statutory benefits in the Writ Petition, and when they were awarded it is only in modification of the award made by the Collector under Section 28-A(2) of the Act. When that be the legal position, the question emerges whether the High Court was right in granting the additional statutory benefits as well. We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court committed grievous error of law in awarding the additional statutory benefits when the Collector himse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
