Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1271 OF 2002

With

I.A. No.3 of 2002

State of Orissa & Ors.       …. Appellants

Versus

Chitrasen Bhoi …. Respondent

O R D E R

I.A. No.3

1. An application i.e. I.A. No. 3 has been filed by the Central Institute of  

Fresh  Water  Acqua-Culture  (CIFWA),  Bhubaneswar  under  the  Indian  

Council  of  Agriculture  Research  (ICAR)  for  their  impleadment  as  

Respondent.  Mr. V.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the applicants has  

submitted that  the land in dispute  in fact  had been acquired for the said  

applicants, therefore, the applicants be impleaded as parties in this appeal.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants have no objection  

in this regard.  Consequently, the applicants are impleaded as Respondent  

Nos. 2 and 3 in this appeal.  The I.A. is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

Appeal No.1271 of 2002

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the  

division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 23.2.1999 allowing the writ  

petition filed by the respondent for seeking direction to the Land Acquisition  

Collector  to  consider  his  application  under  Section  28A  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).   

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal, as stated in the  

petition, are that a huge area of land was notified under section 4 of the Act  

in the official Gazette of the State of Orissa dated 1.1.1973 (Annexure-5).  

The  acquisition  was  sought  for  establishment  of  the  Central  Institute  of  

Fresh Water Acqua-Culture, i.e., a Fish  Farm.  Declaration under section 6  

of  the  Act  in  respect  of  the  said  land  was  made  on  9.7.1973  and  was  

published in the official  Gazette  dated 11.7.1973.  The Land Acquisition  

Collector made award, so far as the land of the present respondent no.1 is  

concerned, on 31.7.1975 assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.2500/-  

per acre.  Respondent no.1 did not agitate the matter further, however, other  

2

persons whose lands stood notified by the same notification under section 4  

and declaration under section 6 of the Act filed the reference under section  

18  of  the  Act  and  the  same  was  decided  vide  Award  dated  5.1.1995  

assessing  the  market  value  of  the  land  @  Rs.10,000/-  per  acre  while  

deciding  Misc.  Case  No.362/94.   The  respondent  filed  application  under  

Section 28A of the Act on 21.3.1995 claiming the same market value for his  

land.   The Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated 11.3.1997 rejected  

the said application.  Being aggrieved the respondent filed the writ petition  

which has been allowed by the High Court.  Hence, this appeal.   

4. Shri  J.S.  Attri,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  –  State  of  

Orissa has raised a large number of issues contending that the application  

under Section 28A of the Act had rightly been rejected by the Collector as  

the same was not maintainable.  It had been filed at a belated stage i.e. after  

more than 20 years of the date of award made under Section 11 of the Act.  

The High Court has held that the application under section 28A had been  

filed within limitation, however, the Collector has been directed to decide  

the said application,  provided, it  is  found to be maintainable.   The order  

itself is contradictory as the issue of maintainability solely depends upon the  

issue of limitation and no other issue can be examined by the Collector.  

Therefore, the High Court ought to have dismissed the petition.   

3

5. On the other hand, Shri  M. Samantaray,  learned counsel appearing  

for the respondent no. 1 has vehemently opposed the petition contending that  

the High Court has rightly held that the application had been filed within  

limitation and therefore, no interference is required.  The appeal is liable to  

be dismissed.

6. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made  by  the  learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.   

7. Grievance has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant State  

that application under Section 28-A of the Act was filed after 20 years and  

therefore it was not maintainable.  Law requires that the application be  filed  

by the eligible person within three months from the date of the reference  

award, on the basis of which the application is being filed.  The issue of  

limitation in this regard is no more res integra.

8. In State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Marri Venkaiah & Ors., AIR  

2003 SC 2949, this Court has dealt with the issue of limitation and held as  

under:-

“Plain  language  of  the  aforesaid  section  would  only  mean  that  the   period of limitation is three months from the date of the award of the  court. It is also provided that in computing the period of three months,   the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for  obtaining  the  copy  of  the  award  is  to  be  excluded.  Therefore,  the  aforesaid provision crystallises that application under Section 28-A is to   

4

be filed within three months from the date of the award by the court by  only  excluding  the  time requisite  for  obtaining  the  copy.  Hence,  it  is   difficult to infer further exclusion of time on the ground of acquisition of   knowledge by the applicant………….In our view, with regard to the first   contention that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision, there cannot be   any dispute.  However, the advantage of the benefit which is conferred is   required to be taken within the stipulated time.  A landowner may be  poor or illiterate and because of that he might not have filed reference   application but that would not mean that he could be negligent in not   finding  out  whether  other  landowners  have  filed  such  applications.   Whosoever wants to take advantage of the beneficial legislation has to be   vigilant and has to take appropriate action within the prescribed time.   He must at least be vigilant in making efforts to find out whether the   other landowner has filed any reference application and if so, what is the   result.  If that is not done then the law cannot help him….”  (Emphasis   added).

While  deciding  the  said  case  the  Court  placed  reliance  upon  its  

earlier judgments in Tota Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC  

280; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mangatu Ram & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2704;  

and Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese Vs. Land Acquisition Collector  

& Anr., AIR 1997 SC 1915. The Court further rejected the contention that  

limitation would run from the date of knowledge distinguishing its earlier  

judgments on fact and law in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. Deputy  

Land Acquisition Officer,  AIR 1961 SC 1500; and State of Punjab Vs.  

Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604.

9. In Bhagti (Smt.) (Deceased) through L.Rs. v. State of Haryana (1997)  

4  SCC 473,  this  Court  held  that  a  claimant  can  seek redetermination  of  

5

compensation on the basis of the award of the Reference Court and not the  

judgment of the High Court and further held that only those claimants who  

had failed to apply for a reference under section 18 of the Act are conferred  

with the right to apply for redetermination under section 28A(1) of the Act.  

The same view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Bantram (dead) by  

L.Rs. (1996) 4 SCC 537.  In Union of India & Ors. v. Karnail Singh & Ors.  

(1995) 2 SCC 728, a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court held that  

provisions of Section 28A of the Act, as inserted by Act No.68 of 1984, is  

prospective in nature and  do not apply to an award made by civil court prior  

to 24.9.1984.  The limitation of  three months  for making application  for  

redetermination of compensation is to be computed from the date of earliest  

award made by the civil court.  

However, a three Judges’ Bench of this Court in Union of India &  

Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 736 overruled the judgment in  

Union of India v. Karnail  Singh (supra) to the extent that application for  

redetermination  may  be filed  within  three  months  from the date  of  first  

award of the Reference Court observing that intention of the Legislature  

was  not  to  restrict  the  benefit  of  the  amended  law,  to  the  extent  that  a  

claimant has to apply within limitation from the date of the first award of  

the Reference Court.  Thus, it is permissible even to make an application on  

the basis  of  a subsequent  Reference Court  Award.   However,  it  must  be  

6

within the limitation from the date of making of the said subsequent award.  

This view was further clarified by this Court in the State of Tripura & Anr.  

v. Roopchand Das & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 421.    

10. In  the  instant  case,  admittedly  the  application  was  filed  within  3  

months from the date of reference award, the applicant  - Respondent No. 1  

had relied upon.  The appellant  had not laid down any factual position as  

under what circumstances the application was time barred.  Therefore, no  

interference is required on this ground.

11. Admittedly,  the  High  Court  has  directed  the  Land  Acquisition  

Collector to decide the application under Section 28A of the Act provided it  

is found to be maintainable, however, the issue of limitation would not be  

agitated/ considered. In such a fact situation the question does arise as to  

whether the Land Acquisition Collector can still examine the maintainability  

of the application and if so, on what grounds?

12. The scope of provisions of Section 28-A of the Act was considered by  

this Court in Mewa Ram Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 45, and the  

Court placed emphasis particularly on para 2 (ix) of the object and reasons  

of the Amendment Act, 1987  which provided for a special provision for  

inarticulate  and  poor  people  to  apply  for  re-determination  of  the  

compensation amount on the basis of the court award in a land acquisition  

7

reference filed by comparatively affluent land owner. The Court observed as  

under:  

“Section  28-A  in  terms  does  not  apply  to  the  case  of  the   petitioners..... They do not belong to that class of society for whose   benefit  the provision is intended and meant, i.e.  inarticulate and  poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have  failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court  under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894....”  (Emphasis   added).

13. This Court approved and reiterated the law laid down in Mewa Ram  

(Supra) in Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda  

Vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 1991 SC 730. In Babua Ram & Ors. Vs.  

State of U.P. & Anr. (1995) 2 SCC 689, the Apex Court again reiterated the  

law laid down in Mewa Ram (Supra) observing as under:-  

“Legislature made a  discriminatory policy between the poor and  inarticulate as one class of persons to whom the benefit of Section  28-A was to be extended and comparatively affluent who had taken   advantage of the reference under Section 18 and the latter  as a  class  to  which  the  benefit  of  Section  28-A  was  not  extended.   Otherwise,  the  phraseology  of  the  language  of  the  non-obstante   clause would have been differently  worded.....  It  is  true that  the   legislature intended to relieve hardship to the poor, indigent and  inarticulate  interested  persons  who generally  failed  to  avail  the  reference under Section 18 which is an existing bar and to remedy  it,  Section  28-A  was  enacted  giving  a  right  and remedy  for  re- determination….....The legislature appears to have presumed that   the same state of affairs continue to subsist among the poor and   inarticulate persons and they generally fail to avail the right under   sub-section  (1)  of  Section  18  due  to  poverty  or  ignorance  or   avoidance of expropriation.” (Emphasis added).

8

14. Thus, it is apparent that the legislature has carved out an exception in  

the form of Section 28-A and made a special provision to grant some relief  

to  a  particular  class  of  society,  namely  poor,  illiterate,  ignorant  and  

inarticulate people. It  is made only for “little Indians”. The provisions of  

Section  28-A  refer  to  the  “person  interested”  which  means  the  original  

owner and that original owner interested must further be a person aggrieved  

by the award of the Collector.   In G. Krishna Murthy & Ors. Vs. State of  

Orissa,  (1995) 2  SCC 733; D Krishna Vani & Anr.  Vs.  State  of  Orissa,  

(1995) 2 SCC 735; Union of India & Anr. Vs. Pradeep Kumari & Ors., AIR  

1995 SC 2259; and U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs.  

State of U.P. & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 766, it has been held by this Court that a  

person  who  prefers  Section  18  reference  cannot  maintain  an  application  

under  Section  28-A of  the  Act.  The  benefit  of  such  an  exceptional  rule  

cannot be extended to such persons as it would be against the public policy.  

In Union of India Vs. Shivkumar Bhargava & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 812 , this  

Court  observed that  the benefit  of  the State  policy which confers certain  

beneficial rights on a particular class of person is meant only for the person  

whose  land  was  acquired  and  by  necessary  implication  “the  subsequent  

purchaser was elbowed out from the policy and became disentitled to the  

benefit of” the State policy.  

9

15. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments a similar view has also  

been  taken  by  this  Court  in  Kendriya  Karamchari  Sehkari  Grah  Nirman  

Samiti Ltd., Noida Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 754.    

16. In Des Raj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 753 it was  

held by this Court that if a person has applied under Section 18 of the Act  

and pursued the matter further, he is not entitled to maintain the application  

under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation. The Court further  

held that it is mandatory to file the application within prescribed limitation,  

which runs from the date of the Award under Section 18 of the Act. While  

deciding the said case the Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments,  

including Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. (supra).

17. In Union of India Vs. Munshi Ram & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1716, this  

Court  has  laid  down  the  law  that  such  an  application  is  maintainable  

provided a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act.  

The Court held that Section 28-A seeks to confer the benefit of enhanced  

compensation on those owners who did not seek Reference under Section 18  

of the Act. In fact, under the said provision they are entitled for enhanced  

10

compensation decreed by the Reference Court and further as the decreed  

amount stands modified in appeal by the higher Courts.

18. Therefore, it is evident that an application under Section 28-A  has to  

be dealt with by the  Land Acquisition Officer keeping in mind the aforesaid  

settled legal propositions.

19. Thus, it is evident that the submission made by learned counsel for the  

appellant  that  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  is  bound  to  enhance  the  

compensation without considering any other fact, as the application has been  

held to have been filed within limitation, is preposterous.  

20. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the appeal.  The  

appeal stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Land  

Acquisition  Collector  shall  consider  the  issue  of  maintainability  of  the  

application  filed  by  respondent  in  the  light  of  the  aforesaid  settled  legal  

proposition  expeditiously  without  considering  the  issue  of  limitation.  

Needless to say that  newly added respondents, namely Indian Council of  

Agricultural Research (ICAR) &  Central Institute of Fresh Water Acqua-

Culture  (CIFWA)  shall  also  be  heard  at  the  time  of  disposal  of  the  

application filed by respondent no. 1.  No cost.

…………………………………….J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

11

…………………………………….J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi; September 16,  2009.

12