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

PETITIONER: G. KRISHNA MURTHY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/01/1995

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

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1436            1995 SCC  (2) 733  JT 1995 (2)   683        1995 SCALE  (1)684

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2.   The  notification  under  section  4(1)  of  the   Land Acquisition  Act was published on August 11, 1971  acquiring about 700 acres of land in Golabandha Buxi Palli,  Vikrampur in Ganjam District of Orissa State.  By his award dt.   June 22, 1974, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value.    On  reference  under  section  18,   the   learned Subordinate  Judge confirmed the award of the  Collector  by his award and decree dt.  January 31, 1985.  The  appellants did  not carry the matter in appeal.  When others filed  the appeal  under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act  before the High Court, the High Court enhanced the compensation  to the  fruit bearing trees at Rs. 990/- and Rs. 650/- for  not fruit  bearing  trees by its judgment dt.  April  21,  1992. Thereafter  the  appellants  filed  the  application   under section  28-A  of the Land Acquisition Act on  November  21, 1992  for  redetermination.  The  Land  Acquisition  Officer dismissed the application and thereof, the High Court by its order  dt.  April 30, 1993 confined the same in  O.J.C.  No. 24/93.  Thus this appeal by special leave. 3.   It is contended that when the High Court awarded higher compensation  by operation of section 28-A of the  Land  Ac- quisition 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  Owning Sociely Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors. reported  in AIR 1991 SC 738 and Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of UP. &  Anr. reported in JT 1994 (7) SC 377.  Therefore, the  application under sec. 28-A is not maintainable.  The Collector and  the High  Court rightly refused to grant the amount on par  with the judgment of this Court. 4.   The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

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