Supreme Court of India

THE STATE OF PUNJABversusRAGHBIR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: 1995 INSC 145
Decided: 28 February 1995
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB L HANSARIA

Holding

An application for reference under Section 28A does not lie unless it is based on the district court's judgment and filed within the limitation period, rendering the Amendment Act inapplicable.

Summary

The State of Punjab acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, publishing a notification in February 1981 and the Collector making an award on December 22, 1983. The respondents did not seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act. After a High Court judgment in 1990 enhanced compensation for another claimant, the respondents filed an application on January 2, 1991 under Section 28A seeking reference to a civil court based on that High Court judgment. The Collector dismissed the application, but the High Court, on revision, allowed it and ordered a re‑determination of compensation. The Supreme Court held that a reference under Section 28A can be made only on the basis of the district court's judgment and must be filed within the limitation prescribed in the proviso of Section 28A(1). Since the application was neither filed within the limitation period nor immediately after the award, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 could not be applied, and the High Court’s order was set aside. The appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether an application for reference under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act can be filed on the basis of a High Court judgment rather than the district court's judgment.
Whether the limitation period prescribed in the proviso to Section 28A(1) was complied with.
Whether the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 is applicable to the present reference application.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Acts. 11, s. 18, s. 28A(1), s. 4(1)
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Acts. 68 of 1984

Subjects

Land acquisitionReference under Section 28ALimitation periodCompensation enhancementAmendment Act 68 of 1984Civil court reference

Judgment

I
THE STATE OF PUNJAB A
v.
I.cir RAGHBIR SINGH AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 28, 1995

(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act-Amendment Act 68 of 1984-Not ap-
plicable-Application for reference does not lie.
(--
( ,-• After notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the
c
-'-( Collector made his award. The respondents did not seek any reference for
the same as provided in S.18 of the Act.

One of the claimants in the same notification appealed the High
Court which enhanced his compensation. On the basis of that High Court
judgment the respondents sought reference of the civil court. The Colector D
dismissed the reference but the High Court in revision directed re-deter-
mination of the compensation.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : The application for reference does not lie. The reference E
could be made only on the basis of the judgment of tht> Reference Court
but within the limitation prescribed under the proviso of S.28A(l). In this
case neither the application was filed within limitation nor immediately
after the award of the District Court. Under these circumstances the
Amendment Act 68 of 1984 cannot be applied and the High Court clearly
r~
F
committed error of law in allowing the revision. (378-E]

Babua Ram and Others v. State of U.P. andAnr., JT (1994) 7 SC 377,
-/ applied.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3521 of G
1995.

--..(_
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.92 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 885 of 1992.

- G.K. Bansal for the Appellant. H
377
' } '
- - ---1

...
·,.
'
.•\'
•• >
\ '

·--c-. [1995] 2 S.C.R.
' · 378
.· SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A 'R.K Talwar, Goodwin Ind~evar fo; the\ Respondents.
·. ~
\ >

The follo\\ing Order of the Court was. delivered : '.

The Notification under Section 4(1) was published on February+,
1981 for public purpose. The Collector made an award under Section 11
B on December 22,' 1983: The respondents did not seek for a"y reference
under Section ·18. The High Court in the appeal filed by one of the.
claimants. in the same notification by the judgment and decree .datecl
Septemnber 10, 1990 enhanced the compensation at Rs. 1,75,000 per. acre.
Thereon the respondents filed the application on January 2, 1991 under
·Section 28A seeking reference to the Civil Court on the basis of the
c .judgment of the Higll eo'urt. The Collector dismissed the application on .,.!
January 22, 1992. Thereon the responde;,ts filed revision in the High Coiirt.
The High Coiirt in the impugned order dated August 14, 1992 allowed and .
directed fe~detCnnination of the compens~tion, on the basis of the judg-
.ment of th High Court dated Sept. 12, 1990. ·
D
' . ' .. ' ,. .. ,- ' . '
· ·· ·
'. ' .
The entire controversy is now covered by judgment of this Court in
Babua Ram & Others v. State of U.P. &Anr., J.T. (1994) 7 SC 377. In view
of the above judgment the necessary conclusion is that the application for
reference does not lie. The reference could be made only' on the basis of
the Judgment of the Reference Court but within the limitation prescribed
. E . under the proviso.of Sec. 28A(l). hi this ease
neither the application was
filed within limitation nor iniinediately after the award of the Distnct
- Court. Under these' circumstances tbC Amendment Act 68 of 1984 caiinot
be applied and the High Court clearly committed error of law in allowing
the i:evisioiL The apPealis allowed. The order of the High Court in C.R.
F No. 88/1992 dated August 14, .1992 is set ~ide btit in the circumst~ces
without costS. · . . ' ·

A.G. " Appeal allowed.

___,_ .

•

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search