# BABUARAM v. STATE OF U.P

- **Citation:** [1994] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 148
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1994-10-04
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, N. Venkatachala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/babuaram-v-state-of-u-p-12454
- **Pages:** 43

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Ac~ 1894 as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (w.e.f September 24, 1984}-S.28A-/nterpretation of-Held,
S.28A is prospective and does not apply to awards made prior to
C 24.9.84-Also, held, where owner of other land covered by same notification
is awarded higher compensation by civil court on a reference under S.18, any
interested person in land acquired under same notification who did not avail
right and remedy of reference is aggrieved persolt-Award of civil court of
original jurisdiction on reference is award referred to in S.28A ( 1 )-:ludgment
and decree of High Court or Supreme Court not award under
D s.28A(l}-Redeterrnination under s.28A should however be kept pending by
Collector/LAO till appeals are finally disposed of-Where appellate forum
affinns or reduces award of civil court, redetennination shall be on that
basis-Held further, provision intended for poor and inarticulate, and is not
available for (hose who had sought and secured reference and failed in civil
E court or further in appeaf-Ss.18(1) r/w 31 (2), 4( 1), 26.
F
Land Acquisition Act, 189.f-Ss.28A Proviso, 26-Limitatiolt-Whether
successive aw{lTds made by civil court at different times in respect of land
covered by same notification furnish separate causes of action-Held, limitation begins to nm from date of award of court under S.26-Where there is
more fhan one reference, (he earliest award is relevant for computing limitation.
Land Acquisition Ac~ 189.f-S.28A-Whether a transitional prpvision
-Held, Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 Expressly provided for
G transitional provision and S.28A is apart from it-Further, language of
provision indicates that it is intended to operate in perpetuity-Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984, S.3(}-{nterpretation of Statutes.
Constitution of India-Article 14-Land Acquisition Act, 189.f-S.28A
-Difference in treatment between those who failed to avail the remedy of
H reference and (hose who were unsuccessful interested persons--Whether violai48
BABUARAMv. STATE
149
tive of Article 14-Held, similar persons who availed of remedy but were A
unsuccessful are a distinct class-Legislature having intended to relieve
hardship to poor, indigent and inarticulate interested persons, classification
based on intelligible differentia and bears reasonable relation to object of
according another opportunity.
Land Acquisition Act, 189-f-Ss.26, 28A, 11, 18, 5-f-Whether B
beneficiary has right of reference from award of Collector under S.28A-Held,
offer of Collector being on behalf of State and the beneficiary, they may not
seek reference under S.llf-Award of Collector under S.28A (2) partakes the
same character as offer and not a decision, and beneficiary stands excluded
under S.28A(3 ).
C
Constitution of Indiir-Articles 226, 227-Land Acquisition Ac~ 189-fS.28A-Held, State or beneficiary may challenge award of Collector under
S.28A only under Articles 226 and 227.
Land Acquisition Act, 189-f-S.28A-Haryana and H.P. AmendD.
ments-S.18(2A)-Held, permit the state to seek reference against an award
under s.28A.
Intepretation of statutes-Aids to constrnctio1t-Statement of Objects
and Reasons-Held, it may be looked into to know what induced introduction
~-
E
S.28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act') was introduced by
the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. It provided for the redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the
court, to be paid to persons interested notwithstanding that they had not
made an application for reference under s.18 to the Collector. Various
issues arising as to the Import of S.28A, including questions about
prospectivity, the persons included within its scope, whether 'award'
referred to therein is an award of only the original civil court or also of
F
the appellant courts,the computing of limitation, and the right of a
beneficiary to seek a reference, this Court issued notice to all the State G
Government and the Central Government.
Disposin

## Text

_Characters 0–39,504 of 114,428. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39504 for what follows._

A
B
BABUARAM
v.
STATE OF U.P.
OCTOBER 4, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Ac~ 1894 as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (w.e.f September 24, 1984}-S.28A-/nterpretation of-Held,
S.28A is prospective and does not apply to awards made prior to
C 24.9.84-Also, held, where owner of other land covered by same notification
is awarded higher compensation by civil court on a reference under S.18, any
interested person in land acquired under same notification who did not avail
right and remedy of reference is aggrieved persolt-Award of civil court of
original jurisdiction on reference is award referred to in S.28A ( 1 )-:ludgment
and decree of High Court or Supreme Court not award under
D s.28A(l}-Redeterrnination under s.28A should however be kept pending by
Collector/LAO till appeals are finally disposed of-Where appellate forum
affinns or reduces award of civil court, redetennination shall be on that
basis-Held further, provision intended for poor and inarticulate, and is not
available for (hose who had sought and secured reference and failed in civil
E court or further in appeaf-Ss.18(1) r/w 31 (2), 4( 1), 26.
F
Land Acquisition Act, 189.f-Ss.28A Proviso, 26-Limitatiolt-Whether
successive aw{lTds made by civil court at different times in respect of land
covered by same notification furnish separate causes of action-Held, limitation begins to nm from date of award of court under S.26-Where there is
more fhan one reference, (he earliest award is relevant for computing limitation.
Land Acquisition Ac~ 189.f-S.28A-Whether a transitional prpvision
-Held, Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 Expressly provided for
G transitional provision and S.28A is apart from it-Further, language of
provision indicates that it is intended to operate in perpetuity-Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984, S.3(}-{nterpretation of Statutes.
Constitution of India-Article 14-Land Acquisition Act, 189.f-S.28A
-Difference in treatment between those who failed to avail the remedy of
H reference and (hose who were unsuccessful interested persons--Whether violai48
BABUARAMv. STATE
149
tive of Article 14-Held, similar persons who availed of remedy but were A
unsuccessful are a distinct class-Legislature having intended to relieve
hardship to poor, indigent and inarticulate interested persons, classification
based on intelligible differentia and bears reasonable relation to object of
according another opportunity.
Land Acquisition Act, 189-f-Ss.26, 28A, 11, 18, 5-f-Whether B
beneficiary has right of reference from award of Collector under S.28A-Held,
offer of Collector being on behalf of State and the beneficiary, they may not
seek reference under S.llf-Award of Collector under S.28A (2) partakes the
same character as offer and not a decision, and beneficiary stands excluded
under S.28A(3 ).
C
Constitution of Indiir-Articles 226, 227-Land Acquisition Ac~ 189-fS.28A-Held, State or beneficiary may challenge award of Collector under
S.28A only under Articles 226 and 227.
Land Acquisition Act, 189-f-S.28A-Haryana and H.P. AmendD.
ments-S.18(2A)-Held, permit the state to seek reference against an award
under s.28A.
Intepretation of statutes-Aids to constrnctio1t-Statement of Objects
and Reasons-Held, it may be looked into to know what induced introduction
~-
E
S.28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act') was introduced by
the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. It provided for the redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the
court, to be paid to persons interested notwithstanding that they had not
made an application for reference under s.18 to the Collector. Various
issues arising as to the Import of S.28A, including questions about
prospectivity, the persons included within its scope, whether 'award'
referred to therein is an award of only the original civil court or also of
F
the appellant courts,the computing of limitation, and the right of a
beneficiary to seek a reference, this Court issued notice to all the State G
Government and the Central Government.
Disposing of the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1. S.28A is prospective from the date the Act came into force,
i.e. September 24, 1984. It does not apply to an award under S.26 made H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A prior to that date. The verb "allows" in S.28(1) indicates that the right to
an aggrieved person arises under the provision only when the reference
Court grants compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the
Collector/Land Acquisition officer under S.11 after September 24, 1984.
The proviso, when it speaks of exclusion of time take to obtain copy of the
B
c
award by S.26 till it is supplied, also amplifies this position. Moreover, the
transitional provision enacted in S.30 of the Land Acquisition (Amend·
men!) Act; 1984 provided variously for retrospective effect of some parts
of the provision, some without limitation and some with limited retrospec·
tivity. The legislature however not having given s.28 retrospectivity, it is
only prospective in operation. [172-A·C·F]
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754; Nyadar Singh v.
Union of India, [1988) 4 SCC 170; Maharashtra State Financial Corporation
v. Jaycee Dmgs and Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., [1991) 2 SCC 637; State of
Orissa v. Sukanti Mahapatra, [1993) 2 SCC 486; A.C. Sharma v. Delhi
Admn., [1973) 3 SCR 477; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, [1983) 1 SCC
D 305; D. C.M. Ltd. v. Union of India, [1983) 4 SCC 166 and K.S. Paripooman
v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 593, referred to.
E
F
2. Where a civil court in a reference under S.18 awards compensation
higher than that awarded by the Collector, any person interested in other
land acquired by the same notification and who has not availed of the right
and remedy of reference is a person aggrieved, and is entitled to redeter·
mination under S.28A(l). [168·D)
Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, [1986] 4 SCC 151 and K Rangiah v.
Sp!. Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition), [1982) 2 SCC 374, relied on.
Collins English Dictionary, Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (In·
temational Edition), p.28 and Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) p. 65,
referred to.
3. The award of the court referred to in S.28A(l) is that of the civil
G court of original jurisdiction or of judicial officer performing the functions
of such court under s.26 of the Act on reference under S.18. Since the
ju.dgment or the High Court under S.54 and of this Court do not come
within Part Ill or the Act, they stand excluded from an award envisaged
under S.28A(l). [168-C]
H
4. Limitation begins to run from the date the award is pronounced
BABUARAMv. STATE
151
by the court under S.26. Where there Is more than one reference under A
S.18 at the behest of different claimants of the lands covered by the same
S.4(1) notification, and the Court makes successive and varying awards at
various times, S.28A(l) expressly states that once limitation expires in
respect of the earliest award by effiux of time, none of the later awards
could revive the lapsed time under S.28A(l). Nor does it provide a fresh
cause of action on successive causes of action when multiple awards are
made at different times or dates. The judgment and decree of the Court of
appeal either under S.54 of under S.96 CPC or under Article 132, 133 or
B
136 of the Constitution does not furnish a fresh cause of action for
purposes of limitation. [169·A, D-G]
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Dy. LAO, [1962] 1 SCR 676,
considered and distinguished.
c
S. If the objections relate to 'determination of compensation' and the
civil court enhances compensation on the basis of excess compensation
awarded under S.26, the other person interested in other lands covered by D
the same Notification, are entitled to an award nnder S.28A(l) and (2). If
it relates to any other objection, S.28-A becomes inapplicable. (179-F)
6. The right and remedy provided by S.l8A(l) Is not available to
those who sought and secured reference under S. 18, be they poor or E
others, and failed before the civil court or In appeal. The doctrine of res
judicata operates against such persons. [182-B, 181-G)
Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana (supra) and Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land Owning Society, Batinda v. Union of India, (1991] 1 SCC
17 4, relied on.
F
7. S.28A is just and fair and does not violate Article 14. The class of
similar persons who availed the right and remedy but were unsuccessful
are treated as a distinct class. It is not arbitrary as the classification is
based on intelligible differentia and bears a reasonable relation to the G
object of according another opportunity. (182-G]
8. Where the award is appealed against in the High Court or this
Court, the Collector/LAO should effect redetermination only after the
appeal is finally disposed of. Redetermination of compensation shonld
only be on the basis of the final judgment and decree of the appellate H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A forum, though it may not exceed the amount of the award of the original
court under reference. Before proceeding with the determination, he
should obtain ~n affidavit from the party making the application under
S.28A that no appeal against the award made under s.26 relied upon by
him was filed or if had been filed was disposed of by the appellate court
B and to produce the certified copy of decree and judgment, if already
disposed of. (184-E, 185-A)
9. The Collector should explain to the claimant his right to protest
against the compensation determined under S.11 and the right to seek a
reference under S.18. In case of his failur~ to avail of the same, he would
C
not he entitled to further right and remedy to seek higher compensation.
D
The Collector should append a certificate to this effect and obtain the
signature/thumb impression of all the claimants and this should be a part
of the record of the award proceedings. A register should be maintained in
seriatim. The Collector/LAO should also maintain another register of the
application made under S.28A. (183-C-F)
10. The offer of the Collector being on behalf of the State and the
beneficiary, the State does not get the right to seek a reference under S.18.
Under S.28A, the State and the beneficiary are persons interested in
determination of just and proper compensation. However, acceptance of
E the awa~d under sub- section (3) is acceptance by the claimant and not by
the beneficiary or the State as the Collector acts on their behalf as an
agent. The award of the Collector under S.28A (2) partakes the character
of an offer and not a decision. The right to a reference under S.28A(3) by
the beneficiary therefor does not arise and stands excluded.
F
(186-C-G, 187-C-E)
11. In view of the local amendments to the Act by Haryana and
Hlmachal Pradesh, the State may seek reference under S. 28A (3). (188-B)
12. When applications made under S.28A create a doubt that the
award under s.26 which forms the basis for such application had been
G secured on an antedated or fraudulent application purported to have been
made under s.18, it shall be open to the State to have the matter thoroughly
examined by an Officer of the status of the District Collector/Commissioner. [188-D) .
13. Where the Collector/LAO decides a S.28A application, the same
H amount of compensation need not be given where there are differences in
BABUARAMv. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY,J.]
153
nature and quality and situation of comparable land. (188-F)
14. The Statement of Objects and Reasons can be referred to ascertain the reason for the statute, and to ascertain the mischief sought to be
remedied by the statute. (162-G)
A
Utkal Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCR B
3.17; S.C. Prashar, Income Tux Officer v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, (1964) 1
SCR 29; Shivnarayan Kabra v. State of Madras, (1967) 1 SCR 138; Workmen
of Mis. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India v. Management, (1973) 3 SCR
587 andA.C. Shanna v. Delhi Administration, (1973) 3 SCR 477, relied on.
c
Jia Lal v. The Delhi Administration, (1963) 2 SCR 864; Aswani Kumar
Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, [1953) SCR 1 and Union of India v. Majur
Mahajan Manda/, (1977) 1 SCC 548, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 563 of
~
D
From the Judgment and order dated 24.10.91 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 7276/87.
D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, B.D. Agarwa~ G.L. Sanghi, A
Raghuvir, H.N. Salve, D.V. Sehgal, B. Sen, N.N. Goswami, M.L. Verma, E
Mrs. K. Amareshwari, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Aman Vachhar, Sudhir
Rawat, AS. Rawat, K.C. Bajaj, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Ayesha Khatr~ Raj
Kumar Mehta, Ranbir Yadav, G.K. Bansal, T.C. Sharma, B.K. Prasad, Ms.
A Subhashini, Heman! Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, A Mariarputtarn, Ms.
Arona Mathur, Dr. R.B. Masdokar, K.L. Taneja, M. Veerappa, K.H. Nobin F
Singh, P.N. Puri, Rajendra V. Pai, N.M. Adarkar, A K. Srivastava, R.
Sasiprabhu, Ranjan Mukherjee, P.L. Debey, S.K. Agnihotr~ Pradeep
Misra, K. Ram Kumar, Yashank Adharyu, C. Badrinath Babu, Anip Sachthey, Y.P. Mahajan, W.S. Qadri, C.V.S. Rao, Ms. S. Janani, P. Gaur, S.M.
Sood, Anil Kumar Gupta-II, Y.P. Rao, AK. Panda, Aruneshwar Gupta, G
Anand Y adav and Rajeev Kr. Singh for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. RAMASWAMY, J. Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') proposing acquisition of H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4S.C.R.
A
large extents of land situated in Auri and Anpara villages of U.P., was
published in the State Gazette on July 1, 1978 for public purpose, namely,
establishment of thermal power plant. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave two awards for the respective villages, on June 28 and July 25,
1979. The amounts were said to have been paid to the claimants on diverse
B
dates between October 7, 1979 to August 8, 1983. One Krishna kumar on
receiving the compensation under protest on June 28, 1979 made an
application under Section 18 for reference to the civil court. The Addi.
District Judge-II, Mirzapur, in his award and decree dated May 25, 1985
enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25,000 per bigha with enhanced
statutory benefits under Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984
C (for short "Amendment Act"). The State carried the matter in Appeal No.
306/85 to the High Court which is pending disposal. On August 5, 1985,
the appellants moved the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section
28-A to redetermine and award compensation at par with Krishna Kumar.
They also simultaneously moved the High Court under Article 226 to direct
the Special L.A.0. to decide their applications under Section 28-A. The
D High Court by its order dated January 28, 1987, when directed Special
L.A.O. to do the same, the latter rejected their applications on two grounds
namely, the appellants are not aggrieved persons and that the decree and
award made in favour of Krishna Kumar was pending - appeal in the High
Court. They again challenged it in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7276/87
and by the impugned judgment dated October 24, 1991, the Division Bench
E dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellants are not aggrieved
persons within the meaning of Section 28-A read with Sections 11, 18 &
31 of the Act.
F
Civil Appeal Nos. 6675-89/94
Leave granted.
The facts are that the Notification under Section 4(1) of 'the Act'
was published in the State Gazette on November 17, 1982. The Addi.
Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on .
G October 25, 1985 and the respondents received compensation without
protest. But one of the claimants with protest received the compensation
and on his reference under Section 18 the Addi. District Judge by his
award and decree dated October 25, 1990, enhanced the compensation.
The State carried the matter in appeal. In the meanwhile, on January 19,
1991, the respondents moved an application under Section 28-A of the Act
H
to redetermine the compensation as awarded by the District Judge. The
BABUARAMv. STATE[K. RAMASWAMY,J.]
155
appellant being beneficiary, objected to its maintainability contending that A
the respondents are not aggrieved person. In the meanwhile, the High
Court set aside the decree of the District Judge and remitted the case for
fresh determination. We are informed that the Court awarded at Re.l per
sq. meter. The Land Acquisition Officer by his proceedings dated November 13, 1992, rejected their application finding that the respondents are not
aggrieved persons and no application after remand was made. The responB
dents filed writ petitions No. 350/93 and batch questioning the correctness
of the order passed by the LA.O. The High Court Court allowed the writ
petitions holding that the respondents are persons aggrieved and that since
applications have already been filed under Section 28A(l) within three
months from the date of award of the civil court dated January 25, 1990 C
there was not need for them to make fresh applications.
Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1992.
With
Civil Appeals Nos. 4823, 1067-80, 2030-31 of 1992.
Notification under s.4(1) was published on March 22, 1985 and the
award s.11 was made on may 18, 1985. The Addi. District Judge, by his
D
. award and decree dated 30.8.89 enhanced the compensation, on reference
under s.18, at the instance of others, at a sum of Rs. 59 ,290 per acre. The E
State filed an appeal under s.54 which is pending disposal. The respondents
made an application under s.28-A on 3.10.89 to which the appellants,
beneficiaries under the acquisition, had objected to the petition contending, inter alia, that the respondents are not aggrieved persons, the appeal
against the award of the Addi. District Judge was pending, yet the Collector overruling the objections, by his award dated May 1, 1990 has enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 59,290 per acre with interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of filing the application. Therefore, the appellant filed an
application under s.28-A(3) seeking reference and by his proceedings
dated 5.2.91, the Collector rejected the request for reference under s.18.
F
The appellant carried in revision to the High Court in C.R. No. 2313/91 G
and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by its order dated 17.7.91
summarily dismissed the· petition.
On April 27, 1994, this Court, while noticing divergence of opinion
expressed by different High Courts on the scope of Section 28-A, issued
notice to all the State Governments and the Central Government, since the H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4S.C.R.
A decision will have effect on all the Governments and directed them to
appear and file their written arguments. Notice was also issued to the
B
. learned Solicitor-General to assist the Court. Though notices were served
accordingly to all the State Governments and the Central Government, only
the Central Government and some of the State Governments have entered
appearance through their counsel. However, none has filed written arguments till date despite opportunity afforded therefor.
It is contended for the State Governments that Section 28-A since
speaks of persons "interested' and 'aggrieved", a claimant who received
compensation without protest, becomes disentitled to make an application
under s.18 because of the second proviso to sub-s (2) of s.31. He being a
C non-protester cannot be an aggrieved person. A claimant who receives
compensation under protest but makes no application under Section 18,
becomes a person aggrieved under Section 28-A of the Act and is entitled
to seek redetermination for higher compensation. The question of redetermination of compensation would arise only if an award under section 11
D had been made by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector after the
Amendment Act had come into force, namely, September 24, 1984. In
other words, their contention was that section 28-A is prospective in
operation and has no application to any award made by the Collector/
L.AO., prior to the Amendment Act had come into force. It was also
contended that such an application should be made within three months
E from the date of the award of the court, i.e., civil court on reference under
Section 18 and not on each successive award or decree in appeal. The
limitation of three months should be computed from the date of the award
of the civil court, first in point of time and that neither the subsequent
award under Section 26 or the Judgment or decree of the High Court
F
under Section 54 of this Conrt, does furnish any cause of action nor does
the limitation of three months under Section 28-A start running from the
later dates. When an appeal was filed by the State/beneficiary against the
award and decree of the civil court, the Collector/L.A.0. has to await the
decision of the High Court or of this Court before redetermining the
compensation under s.28A(2). Be it the award made before the Act came
G into force, or the award of the court made after the Amendment Act has
come into force, no application under Section 28-A would lie. The award
of the court envisaged under Section 28-A can only be of the civil court
made on a reference under Section 18 and not the judgment and decree
of the High Court or of this Court. The claimants who did not receive
compensation under protest or unsuccessful applicants under ss.18 or 54
H
',•
BABVARAMv. STATE [K.RAMASWAMY,J.]
157
of the Act or under Art. 136 etc. are not the persons aggrieved when the A
compensation was further enhanced under Section 26 or by the High Court
1mder s.54 or by this Court. It was also contended that the person aggrieved
under Section 28-A, must be one who has an interest in the land which is
sine qua non to claim for higher compensation. Even one who was handicapped due to illiteracy, ignorance or poverty had to receive the compensation only under protest. Only that class of persons who had received the
B
compensation under protest could be aggrieved persons to avail of the right
to claim redetermination of compensation. Section 28A is a transitional
provision and does not apply to future awards. The Collector when redetermined the compensation under s.28A(2), the beneficiary being person
interested not having accepted the award, such person becomes entitled to C
seek reference, under s.28-A(3).
,
Shri Harish Salve, the learned senior counse~ who argued for the
claimants, contended that when compensation was enhanced by court, be
it court of original or appellate jurisdiction, for the land in the neighbourhood of the claimant acquired under the same Notification, such claimant D
also becomes entitled to receive higher compensation for his land by
making an application under s.28-A in that behalf. The grant of higher
compensation would furnish the cause of action even to 'the non-protester
claimant to make an application under s.28-A(l) for redetermination.
Payment of inadequate compensation provides him grievance to seek
redetermination. Therefore, he is an aggrieved person, whether received E
compensation with or without protest or omitted to pursue the right and
remedy under Section 18 or 54 or under Article 136. The right to receive
adequate compensation is the object of the Amendment Act as it was
intended to relieve hardship of the poor or inarticulate claimants who
receive inadequate compensation as stated in the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Bill and the Financial Memorandum annexed to it. Therefore, whether a claimant received the compensation under protest or
without protest, the moment the claimant of the neighbouring land gets
higher compensation, he also becomes entitled to make an application
under Section 28-A for redetermination. Appeal is a continuation of the
original proceedings under Section 18. The limitation begins to run as soon G
as higher compensation is awarded either by the civil court or by the High
Court or by this Court. Excluding the time taken for obtaining a copy of
F
the judgment, within three months thereafter, the application in writing
should be made for redetermination. As the LA.O. is enjoined to redetermine the compensation on the basis of the enhanced ·award of compensaH
158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
tion made under s.26 by the court after September 24, 1984, an award made
under Section 11 even before coming into force of Section 28A, would also
be liable to be reopened. Each or successive award or decree of the Court,
original or appellate jurisdiction would furnish fresh cause of action to
those who had not sought reference under Section 18 or appellate
B
remedres. An unsuccessful applicant for reference under Section 18, who
did not avail of appellate remedies, cannot unjustly be denied payment of
compensation of parity with his affluent neighbour who had been given
higher compensation; be it under s.26 or 54 of the Act or article 136 of the
Constitution etc. Denial would be invidious discrimination between persons
similarly situated, violating article 14 when the remedy was intended to be
C given by the legislature to the poor and inarticulate who usually do not take
advantage of the remedy of reference to higher forums. Sections 28-A(2)
and (3) throw sufficient light on the interpretation of Sections 28-A(l), 11,
18 and 31. Payment of equal compensation to all the people having interest
in the lands acquired under the same Notification is the quintessence and
running thread to avail of the right and the remedy provided for under
D Section 28-A for redetermination of the compensation as required by the
aggrieved persons. It was also contended that the finality of the disposal of
the reference uoder ss. 18 and 54 or Article 136 crystalises the quantum of
compensation payable to the lands under acquisition and that should not
only furnish the remedy the lay claim but also provide a starting point to
compute the limitation. This beneficial interpretation would subserve the
E
purpose of Section 28-A. A harmonious interpretation to advance the
object of Section 28-A should be adopted to achieve the legislative animation of according parity in payment of compensation to all claimants who
have an interest in the lands under the acquisition. Restricted interpretation canvassed for the State frustrates the object of the right and remedy
F
given by Section 28-A of the Act. Section 28-A is not a transitional
provision but one enacted to given benefit in perpetuity even to nonprotester of the right and remedy of redetermination when his neighbour
secured higher compensation.
Before considering the sweep and effect of Section 28-A, it would be
G profitable to advert to the scheme of compensation awardable to a land
acquired pursuant to the Notification published uoder Section 4(1) and
declaration made under Section 6 thereof. By issuing notices uoder Section
9 & 10 to persons interested in the acquired land, they are required to
putforth their claims for compensation payable therefor. The Collector
H
defined under Section 3(c) who issues such notices is enjoined by S.11 to
BABUARAMv. STATE[K.RAMASWAMY,J.]
159
hold an enquiry on the claims for making an award of the compensation A
which in his opinion should be allowed for the land. In determining the
amount of compensation, the Collector shall guided by the provisions of
ss.23 and 24, as is enjoied by s.15. However, such award carmot be made
by the Collector without the prescribed approval of the appropriate
government or of such officer as the appropriate government may authorise B
in this behalf because of the proviso. However, sub-s.(2) of s.11 empowers
the Collector, without any further enquiry, to make an award in terms of
an agreement, where such agreement is made by writing by persons interested in the land on appearing before him. The award shall be made within
the period of limitation fixed by S.11-A. That award is required to be filed
in this office and shall be final and conclusive evidence between the C
Collector and the persons interested as regards matters specified in s.12.
When the award is made, the Collector shall give immediate notice to such
of the interested persons as are not present personally or by their repre- .
sentatives. Section 31 mandates the Collector to tender payment of the
compensation awarded by him to the persons interested thereto according D
to the award and to pay to them unless prevented by one or more of the
contingencies enumerated in Sub-sections (2) and {3) or the latter sub-section or by reason of a reference made under s.30. By operation of second
proviso to S\lb-section (2) it was "provided also that no person who has
received the amount otherwise then under protest shall be entitled to make
any application under s.18". On receiving the payment under protest, an E
application for reference under s.18 shall be made within six weeks from
the date of the Collector's award when the person interested was present
when award was armounced. In other cases, within 6 weeks from the date
of the reeeipt of the notice from the Collector under sub-s.(2) of s.12 or
within 6 weeks from the dete of the Collector's award whichever period
F
shall first expire. Under s.16, unless possession of the acquired land was
taken under s.17, the Collector shall take its possession and such land
thereafter vests in the State absoi>Jtely free from all encumbrances.
The person receiving compensation under protest because of the first G
proviso to s.31(2), gets right under s.18{1) to make an application in writing
to the Colle_ctor requiring him to refer
the matter to the Court 'for
determination of his claim for compensation and the Collector/LA.0. in
such an event, is enjoined to refer the matter with the required particulars.
Court has been defined in s.3( d)to mean principal Civil Court of original
jurisdiction unless the appropriate Government has appointed, a special H
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A Judicial Officer within specified local limits to perform the functions of the
Court under the Act. Under the respective Civil Courts Act of each State,
different Courts have been conferred with original civil jurisdiction like the
Courts of civil judges or Sub-ordinate Judges in South India, the Addi.
District Judge in other States or Special or Senior Civil Judge etc. The Civil
B
c
Court will follow the procedure prescribed in Part III of the Act and C.P.C.
in determining the compensation as envisaged under s.23 of the Act and
determine the market value of the lands acquired and award the compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act. The details thereof are not
material for the present purpose. However, by operation of s.25 the amount
of compensation to. be awarded by the Court shall not be less than the
amount awarded by the Collector under s.11. Under s.26, the Civil Court
shall make its award as enjoined in sub-s.(1) and it is a decree under
sub-s.(2) thereof.
In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Dy. Land Acquisition Officer
D and Anr., (1962) 1 SCR 676, the Dy. Collector on making an award on
March 19, 1950, did not notice or award to the appellant. On January 13,
1953, on coming to know of the making of the award, the appellant made
an application on February 24, 1953 under s.18 requesting the Collector to
refer the matter for determination by the Court. That application was
dismissed as barred _by limitation. In dealing with question of limitation,
E this Court held that the decision of the Collector under Section 11 is in
respect of the amount of compensation which should be paid to the person
interested in the property acquired. Legally such award cannot be treated
as a decision. It is in law an offer or tender of the Compensation determined by the Collector to the owner of a property acquired. If !he owner
F
accepts the offer, no further proceeding is required to be pursued, the
amount is paid and compensation proceedings comes to an end. If, however, the oWiler does nQt accept the offer, Section 18 gives him the statutory
right of having the q~stion determined by court and it is the amount of
compensation which the court may determine that would bind both the
owner and the Collector. The Collector does not determine the amount
G with legal authority but if the court determines the amount judicially, the
acquisition proceedings would be concluded. The award, therefore, was
considered as a tender or offer made by the Collector on behalf of the
Government to the owners of the property for acceptance. Although the
Government is bound by the proceedings of the Collector, the persons
H interested are not concluded by the findings in the award. Therefore, he
,
BABUARAMv. STATE[K.RAMASWAMY,J.]
161
makes the offer binding on the Government as well as on the owner of the A
property. Communication of the award is required to be done if he is not
present at the time of the making of the award or none represented them.
Service of notice of award is made mandatory. Therefore, this Court held
that "the date of the award cannot be determined solely by reference lo
the time when the award is signed by the Collector or delivered by him in B
his office; it must involve the consideration of the question as to when it
was know to the party concerned either actually or constructively. The date
of the award should be construed in that perspective. The knowledge of
the party affected by the decision of the Collector, either actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision
can be brought into force. The communication of the award to the party C
concerned, actually or constructively, is therefore, necessary. If the award
is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by, it
can be said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the award is communicated to the party and it is accordingly
pronounced on the date previously armounced, the award is said to be D
communicated to the said party even if the said party is not actually present
on the date of its pronouncement. If the party is represented, the party is
presumed to have the knowledge of the date. In other cases, the communication to the party is necessary." Knowledge of the party affected by
the award eight actual or constructive is essential to satisfy the requirements of fairness and principles of natural justice. The legal position E
enunciated in Barish Chander's case being the law under Art. 141 and the
legislature being presumptively aware of this legal position, has altered
the law by enacting s.28A by the Amendment Act.
The State having regard to the Directive Principles of State policy in F
Part IV of the Constitution which has to undertake diverse measures in a
massive scale to promote public welfare and to accelarate economic
development has to inevitably acquire land needed for public purposes -
industrial development, housing, educational institutions etc. Cases of land
acquisition of land have become far more numerous than ever before. G
Exercising the power of eminent domain when the State takes recourse to
acquisition of lands of the individuals or institutions for public purpose, to
balance the right of the individual whose land is acquired for promotion
of the public purpose, the deprived owner of the land is required to be
adequately compensated for his own rehabilitation keeping in view the ·
sacrifice he makes in the larger public interest. Taking into consideration H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A the stark realities that many a poor and inarticulate owner of acqnired land
are not usually taking advantage of the reference provided in Section 18
for obtaining adequate compensation for their acqnired lands, Parliament
while bringing about certain amendments to the Act, has enacted Section
28-A through the reintroduced 1984-Bill, with the object mentioned in para
2(IX) of the Statement of Objects 'and Reasons, which says : - "considering
B that the right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act is
not usually taken advantage by poor and inarticulate and is usually exercised only by the comparatively affluent land owners and that this causes
considerable inequality in the payment of compensation for the same or
similar quality of land to different interested persons, it was proposed to
C provided an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered
under the same Notification to seek redetermination of compensation, once
any one of them has obtained orders of payment of higher compensation
from the reference court under Section 18 of the Act." In para 3 of the
Financial Memorandum, it is stated thus : "Clause (19) of the Bill seeks
D
to commensurate a new s.18A of the Act whjch provides that if a party in
a land acquisition proceeding obtains the orders of the court under s.18 of
the Act for higher compensation, another person whose lands are covered
under the same Notification under s.4(1) of the Act and who may have
reason to be similarly aggrieved by the award of the Collector, may file to
the Collector for redetermination of their amount of compensation payable
E to them on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court".
The Statement of Objects and Reasons, as seen eloquently manifests
the legislative animation in enacting s.28A of the Act. This Court in Utkal
Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1987] 3 SCR 317-28 E &
F, held that the safest guide to the interpretation of statutes is the reason
F
for it, which can be discovered through the external and internal aids, the
external aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons when the Bill was
presented in Parliament and internal aids are the preamble, the scheme
and the provisions of the Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons can
be referred to ascertain the mischief sought to be remedied by the statute
G vide S.C. Prashar, Income Tax Officer v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, (1964) 1
SCR 29, Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras, [1967] 1 SCR 138,
Workmen of Mis Firestone Type & Rubber Co. of India v. Management &
Ors., [1973) 3 SCR 587; and inA.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration, (1973)
3 SCR 477.
H
InJia Lal v. The Delhi Administration, [1963) 2 SCR p.864 at 877, a
BABVARAMv. STATE[K RAMASWAMY,J.)
163
Constitution Bench held that the Statement of Objects and Reasons is not A
admissible in evidence for construing the statute. In Aswini Kumar Ghosh
& Anr. v. Arabinda Bose & Anr., (1953] SCR p.l at 28, another Constitution
Bench held that the Statement of Objects and Reasons only would explain
what reasons induced the mover to introduce the Bill in the House and
what objects he sought to achieve. They may or may not correspond to the
objectives, the majority of members had in view when they passed it into
law. The Bill may have undergone radical changes during its passage
through the House or Houses, and there is no guarantee that the reasons
which led to its introduction and the objects thereby sought to be achieved
have remained the same throughout till the Bill emerges from the House
B
as an Act of the Legislature, for they do not form part of the Bill and are C
not voted upon by the members. Therefore, it would not be an aid for the
construction of the statute. In Union of India & Anr. v. Majur Mahajan
Manda/ & Ors., (1977] 1 SCC 548 at 554 para 28], this Court held that the
statement of objects and reasons would be looked into when there is
ambiguity in the language used in the statute.
D
Now let us see the text of Section 28-A. It reads as follows :
"28-A.