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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BANT RAM (DEAD) BY LRS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 537        JT 1996 (5)   637  1996 SCALE  (4)445

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                   CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 1996          (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19212 of 1994)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel on both sides.      The  notification   under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (for  short, the ’Act’) was published on July  10, 1979.  The award  under Section  11 was made on March 13,  1981. The  respondents received  the compensation without  protest.   The  dissatisfied   claimants  moved  an application under Section 18. On reference, the compensation was  enhanced   under  Section   26  on  November  6,  1985. Dissatisfied therewith,  the claimants went in appeal to the High Court. On May 21, 1987, the High Court further enhanced the compensation. The respondents filed an application under Section 28-A  of the  Act on December 4, 1987. The Collector determined the  compensation based  on the  judgement of the High Court  by an  award dated  February 28,  1989. When the award was  called in  question in  writ petition,  the  High Court  by  impugned  order  dated  July  13,  1994  in  W.P. No.10987/93 dismissed the petition. Thus, the appeal against the said order.      Dr.  Rajiv  Dhawan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the respondent has  contended that  Section 28A  would apply not only when an award is made by the Court Under Section 26 but also when  judgment is  made by the High Court under Section 54 of  the Act. We find no force in this contention. Section 28A itself  specifically refers  to applicability of Chapter IIl; in  other words,  chapter III  would be applicable to a reference made  under Section  18 to the court. The marginal note indicates  redetermination of  the compensation  on the basis of  the award  of  the  court.  Section  3(d)  defines "court"  to   mean  a  principal  civil  court  of  original jurisdiction or  a court  of special  Judicial officer. Sub-

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

Section   (1)    of   Section    28A   envisages   "allowing applications",  i.e.,   reference  application  filed  under Section 18 in Part III. Moreover Section 54 falls in Chapter VIII of  the Act.  Therefore, Judgment  and  decree  of  the appellate court/High  Court does  not encompass the award of the Court  referred to in Section 28A. The controversy is no longer res   integra.  In Babu  Ram   vs. State  of  U.P.  & Ors.[(1995)  2   SCC  689]  and  hosts  of  other  decisions following that,  cover the  field. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable  that the  application for  redetermination of the compensation  under Section  28A would not lie after the judgement of the High Court under Section 54 of the Act      The  respondents   filed  the  writ  petition  for  the enforcement of  the award in question. The writ petition was allowed on November 12, 1992 and in contempt proceedings the counsel appearing  for the  Union of India undertook, at the pain of  contempt, to deposit the amounts. On that basis, it is contended  that the  order of  the High Court having been allowed to  become final,  it is  not open  to the  Union of India  to  resist  the  award.  We  find  no  force  in  the contention. The  above writ  petition was  only by way of an execution. Since  the order  passed by  the Collector  under Section 28A  is  found  to  be  non  est,  being  devoid  of jurisdiction,  the   payment  of  the  amount,  at  pain  of contempt, or  even otherwise,  does not disentitle the Union of India to assail the validity of the award.      It is  then contended that there are laches on the part of the  appellants from  1992 to  1996 and  that, therefore, this Court  should decline  to interfere with the matter. We find it  difficult to  give acceptance  to  the  contention. Since the  respondents have  already filed  SLP against  the original order, laches do not stand in the way.      The appeals  are accordingly  allowed. The order of the High Court  and award  under Section  28A are set aside. The appellants are entitled to the restitution of the amount, if it is already withdrawn by the respondents. No costs.