http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: D. KRISHNA VENI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (2) 734        JT 1995 (2)   512  1995 SCALE  (1)683

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2.  Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act  1 of 1894 for short ‘the   Act’  was published on  August  II, 1971  acquiring about 700 acres of land in  Golabandha  Buxi Palli,  Vikrampur in Ganjam Dist of Orissa State.  By  award dated   October  18,  1976  the  land  Acquisition   Officer determined the market value.  On reference under s. 1 8, the learned  subordinate  Judge  confirmed  the  award  of   the Collector at the rate of Rs.80/- per fruit bearing tree  and Rs.  60/-  per  non-fruit  bearing tree  as  full  value  in addition  to the compensation to the land by his  award  and decree dated August 21, 1986.  The appellants did not  carry the  matter in appeal.  When others filed the  appeal  under s.54   of  the  Act,  the  High  Court  had   enhanced   the compensation to the fruit bearing tree at Rs. 990/- and  Rs. 650/- for non-fruit bearing tree by its judgment and  decree dated  December 12, 1989.  Thereafter, the appellants  filed an  application under s.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act  on May  23  1990  for redetermination.   The  Land  Acquisition Officer  dismissed the application and thereafter  the  High Court by its order dated February 8, 1993 confirmed the same in O.J.C. No.965/92. Thus this appeal by special leave. 3.   It is contended that when the High Court awarded higher compensation by operation of s.28-A of the Land  Acquisition Act  the appellants also are entitled to the  same  benefit. The  point is now squarely covered by two judgments of  this Court  in Scheduled Castes Co-operative Land Own in  Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors.reported in AIR  1991 SC 738 and Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & 513 Anr.  reported  in  JT  1994 (7)  SC  377.   Therefore,  the appellants  having failed to avail of the remedy  of  appeal and having already availed the remedy of reference under  s. 18,  they  are not entitled to seek redetermination  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

compensation  on  the  basis  of award  of  the  High  Court granting enhanced compensation.  Section 28-A would apply to the claimants who received the compensation without  protest and  faced  with statutory bar of reference  and  would  not apply  to  those  who  had already  availed  the  remedy  of reference  and got no benefit or lesser benefit  thereunder. Equally  the bar of res judicata clearly would apply to  the appellants.  The application under s.28A is, therefore,  not maintainable.   The  Collector and the  High  Court  rightly refused to grant the amount on par with the judgment of  the High Court. 4.   The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs. 514