V. RAMAKRISHNA RAOversusTHE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.

                      [2010] 11 S.C.R. 1144


A                    V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO
                                 V.
    THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.
              (Civil Appeal No. 7655 of 2004)
                       OCTOBER 05, 2010
B
       [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

c      s. 28A - Land Acquisition - Determination of market
  value of the acquired land by Reference Court - Appeal
  against the order pending before High Court - One of the
  land-owners, who had not invoked s. 18, filing application u/
  s.28A(1) seeking compensation at par with other /and-owners
  - Application allowed - Another application of the land-owners
0
  u/s. 287A(3) seeking reference to the court for fixing fair
  market value - Permission for reference accorded -
  Maintainability of the reference made u/s. 28A(3) - Held: The
  reference made uls. 28A(3) is maintainable - However, the
  market value of the applicant cannot be higher than the
E market value determined in respect of the land of other land-
  owners - Therefore, direction to decide the application ul
  s. 28A(3) after the decision by High Court in other pending
  cases.

F       s. 28A - Aim and object of - Held: Is to ensure that the
    goal of equality enshrined in the Preamble and Articles 38,
    39 and 46 of the Constitution is translated into reality -
    Constitution of India, 1950 - Preamble and Articles 38, 39
    and 46.
G
        Land of the appellant, along with other land-owners
    was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On
    reference u/s. 18 in respect of the acquired lands, the
    Reference Court fixed the market value of the lands. The

H                              1144
 V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. SINGARENI COLLIERIES 1145
             COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.

same being challenged in appeal suit, the High Court            A
remanded the matter to Reference Court to re-determine
the market value. Reference court re-determined the
market value at ? 30,000/- of Category I land and ? 15,000
of category II Land. Appeal suits were filed again
challenging the re-determination, and the same are              B
pending before High Court.

     The appellant, who had not invoked Section 18, filed
application u/s. 28A(1) for payment of enhanced
compensation at par with other land-owners, which was
allowed. Thereafter, the appellant filed application u/         C
s. 28A(3) for making reference to the court for fixing fair
market value of the acquired land. The reference was
made.

     Respondent No. 1 challenged the reference by filing        D
a writ petition, which was dismissed by Single Judge of
High Court. The writ appeal against the order was
allowed by Division Bench of High Court, holding that a
person who gets benefit of higher compensation u/
s. 28A(1) cannot file an application u/s. 28A(3). Therefore,    E
the instant appeal was filed.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1. s. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
represents the Legislature's determination to ensure that       F
the goal of equality enshrined in the Preamble of the
Constitution and Articles 38, 39 and 46 thereof is
translated into reality, at least in the matter of payment of
compensation to those who are deprived of their land for
the benefit of the State, its instrumentalities/agencies and    G
even private persons. Section 28A also represents
statutory embodiment of the doctrine of equality in
matters relating to the acquisition of land. The Act which
was enacted in 1894 and was amended after 90 years has
the potential of depriving a large segment of the society       H
    1146     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A i.e. the 'agriculturist' of their only source of livelihood. The
  scheme of Section 28A provides some solace to this
  segment of the society by ensuring that such of the land-
  owners, whose land was acquired under the same
  notification but who could not, on account of poverty,
B ignorance and other disabilities join others in seeking
  reference uls. 18, get an opportunity to claim
  compensation at par with others. This section is aimed
  at removing inequality in the payment of compensation
  in lieu of acquisition of land under the same notification.
c Therefore, Section 28A has to be interpreted in a manner
  which would advance the policy of legislation to give an
  opportunity to the land-owner who may have, due to
  variety of reasons, not been able to move the Collector
  for making reference uls. 18 of the Act to get higher
  compensation, if market value is revised by the Reference
0
  Court at the instance of other land-owners, whose land
  is acquired under the same notification. [Para 9] [1152-
  D-H; 1153-A-C]

       Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736;
E Union of India v. Munshi Ram (Dead) by Lrs. (2006) 4 SCC
  538; Kendriya Karamchari Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti
  Limited, Naida v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 1 SCC 754 -
  relied on.

F      2. If sub-section (3) of Section 28A is interpreted
  keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by
  enacting the provision for removing inequality in the
  matter of payment of compensation, it must be held that
  a person who is not satisfied with an award made ul
G s. 28A(2) can make an application to the Collector ul
  s. 28A(3) for making a reference to the Court as defined
  in Section 3(d) of the Act and this right cannot be
  frustrated merely because as a result of re-determination
  made uls. 28A(2) rlw s. 28A(1) the applicant becomes
  entitled to receive compensation at par with other land-
H
V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. SINGARENI COLLIERIES 1147
             COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.
owners. There is nothing in the plain language of              A
s. 28A(3) from which it can be inferred that a person who
has not accepted the award made u/s. 28A(2) is precluded
from making an application to the Collector with the
request to refer the matter to the court. The court to
which reference is made u/s. 28A(3) will have to bear in       B
mind that a person who has not sought reference u/s. 18
cannot get compensation higher than the one payable to
those who had sought reference under that Section.
[Para 11] [1154-F-H; 1155-A-B]

      3. In the instant case, on the date of making an award   C
by the Land Acquisition Officer u/s. 28A, appeal suit filed
by other land-owners against the order of the Reference
Court was pending before the High Court. The same was
finally disposed of on 10.3.2000 and the matter was
remanded to the Reference Co_urt for fresh determination       D
of market value of the acquired land. After reconsidering
the matter, the Reference Court passed order dated
17. 7 .2000 and fixed market value of the acquired land,
which was substantially higher than the one determined
by earlier order dated 30.10.1989. Therefore, the appellant    E
cannot be denied right to seek determination of fair
market value which has to be at least at par with market
value fixed by the Reference Court vide order dated
17.7.2000. The mere fact that the application filed by the
appellant u/s. 28A(3) remained pending for more than 9         F
years and it was only on 10.5.2000 that the Collector
accorded permission for making reference to the Court,
cannot be made a ground to deprive the appellant of his
legitimate right to seek further enhancement in the
amount of compensation. If the High Court enhances the         G
compensation payable to the other land owners, the
appellant will also become entitled to higher
compensation. If the High Court dismisses both the
appeals, then too the appellant will be entitled to
compensation at the rate of ?30,000/- per acre for the land    H
    1148      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A falling in category I and ?15,000/- per acre for the land
  falling in category II. If, on the other hand, the amount of
  compensation payable in terms of order dated 17.7.2000
  passed by the Reference Co~rt is reduced by the High
  Court then the amount payable to the appellant will have
B to be adjusted accordingly. [Para 12] (1155-8-H]

      4. The application filed by the appellant u/s. 28A(3) is
  maintainable. However, the Court before which the case
  is pending shall pass appropriate order only after and in
  terms of judgment in the pending cases filed by other
C land-owners. (Para 13] (1156-B]

                         Case Law Reference:
       · (1995) 2 sec 736           Relied on           Para 9
D       (2006) 4 sec 538            Relied on           Para 10
        (2009) 1 sec 754            Relied on           Para 10
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    7655 of 2004.
E
         From the Judgment & Order dated 19.07.2001 of the
    Division Bench of High Court of Judicature of Andra Pradesh
    at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 997 of 2001.

        P.S. Narsimha, Sridhar Potaraju, D. Julius and G. Gauchai
F for the Appellant.

        Altaf Ahmad, P. Parmeswaran, B. Sunitha Rao, C.K.
    Sucharita and Nirada Das for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
         G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. The only question which arises for
    consideration in this appeal filed against the judgment of the
    Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court is whether the
    application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) of the
H                                \~
 V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. SINGARENI COLLIERIES 1149
    COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for making a       A
reference to the Court was maintainable and the High Court
committed an error by quashing the proceedings of O.P. No.31
of 2000 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').
                                                                  B
       2. The land of the appellant (20 acres 11 guntas) was
  acquired by the State Government in 1985 as a part of
  acquisition of large tract of land for mining operations to be
  undertaken by respondent No.1 - Singareni Collieries
  Company Pvt. Ltd. By an award dated 3.8.1987, the Land
  Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the acquired land at C
  Rs.7,000/- per acre for dry land under cultivation (category I)
. and Rs.6,000/- per acre for dry land which was kept fallow
  (category II).

      3. On a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act,      D
 the Reference Court, after considering the evidence produced
 by the parties fixed market value of category I land at
 Rs.10,000/- per acre and of category II land at Rs.9,500/- per
 acre. This did not satisfy the land owners, who filed Appeal Suit
 No.978 of 1990 in the High Court, which was allowed and the         E
 matter was remanded to the Reference Court for re-
 determination of the amount of compensation payable to the
 land owners. The Reference Court reconsidered the matter and
 passed order dated 17.7.2000, whereby it fixed market value
 of the two categories of land at Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/-        F
 per acre respectively. The appeals filed by the parties against
 the fresh determination of market value by the Reference Court
 are pending before the High Court.

      4. The appellant who had not invoked Section 18 of the
 Act filed an application under Section 28A(1) for payment of        G
 enhanced compensation at par with other land owners, at
 whose instance reference was made by the Collector. By an
 order dated 31.12.1990, the Land Acquisition Officer held that
 the appellant is entitled to receive compensation at par with
                                                                     H
    1150     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A other land owners. On the same day, the appellant filed an
  application under Section 28A(3) of the Act for making a
  reference to the Court for fixing the fair market value of the
  acquired land by asserting that he was accepting the amount
  of compensation under protest. The Land Acquisition Officer
B referred the matter to /Collector, Karimnagar, who accorded
  permission for making Ji reference to the Court. Thereupon, the
  Land Acquisition Officer sent communication dated 2.6.2000
  to the Reference Court for fixing the fair market value of the
  appellant's land.
c      5. Respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid
  communication in Writ Petition No.23600/2000, which was
  dismissed by the learned Single Judge with an observation that
  the Civil Court is already seized with the matter in O.P. No. 31/
  2000 and the petitioner can agitate all the points including the
D one relating to maintainability of reference made under Section
  28A(3). The Division Bench allowed the appeal preferred by
  respondent No.1, set aside the order of the learned Single
  Judge and held that a person who gets benefit of higher
  compensation under Section 28A(1) cannot file an application
E under Section 28A(3).

       6. Shri P.S. Narsimha, learned senior counsel appearing
  for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment is liable
  to be set aside because the view expressed by the Division
F Bench on the maintainability of the application filed by the
  appellant under Section 28A(3) is ex facie erroneous and
  contrary to the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Union of
  India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736, Union of India
  v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273, Union of India v. Munshi
  Ram (Dead) by Lrs. (2006) 4 SCC 538 and Kendriya
G Karamchari Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti Limited, Noida v.
  State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 1 SCC 754.

       7. Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel appearing for
  the respondents supported the impugned judgment and argued
H that Section 28A(3) can be invoked only if the amount paid to
 V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. SINGARENI COLLIERIES1151
   · COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the land owner under Section 28A(1) is less than the amount         A
awarded by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act
and not otherwise. Learned senior counsel pointed out that
determination of market value made by the Reference Court
vide order dated 17.7.2000 is under challenge before the High
Court and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get higher   B
compensation. Learned senior counsel emphasized that once
the amount of compensation is re-determined under Section
28A(1 ), the defaulting land owner cannot apply for fixation of
the fair market value of the land by filing application under
Section 28A(3) and the Division Bench of the High Court did         C
 not commit any error by quashing the proceedings pending
before the civil court.

    8. We have considered the respective submissions.
Section 28A of the Act reads as under:
                                                                    D
     "28A. Re-determination of the amount of
     compensation on the basis of the award of the
     Court.- (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court
     allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in
     excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under            E
     Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land
     covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-
     section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of
     the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made
     an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written
                                                                    F
     application to the Collector within three months from the
     date of the award of the Court require that the amount of
     compensation payable to him may be re-determined on
     the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the
     Court:
                                                                    G
     Provided that in computing the period of three months
     within which an application to the Collector shall be made
     under this sub-section, the day on which the award was
     pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
                                                                    H
    1152      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (201 OJ 11 S.C.R.


A       the award shall be excluded.

        (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under
        sub-section (1 ), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all
        the persons interested and giving them a reasonable
        opportunity of being heard, and make an award
B
        determining the amount of compensation payable to the
        applicants.

        (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-
        section (2) may, by written application to the Collector,
c       require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the
        determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections
        18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference
        as they apply to a reference under Section 18."

        9. The above reproduced provision represents the
0
  Legislature's determination to ensure that the goal of equality
  enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution and Articles 38,
  39 and 46 thereof is translated into reality, at least in the matter
  of payment of compensation to those who are deprived of their
E land for the benefit of the State, its instrumentalities/agencies
  and even private persons. Section 28A also represents statutory
  embodiment of the doctrine of equality in matters relating to the
  acquisition of land. The Act which was enacted in 1894 and
  was amended after 90 years has the potential of depriving a
  large segment of the society i.e. the 'agriculturist' of their only
F source of livelihood. The scheme of Section 28A provide some
  solace to this segment of the society by ensuring that such of
  the land owners whose land was acquired under the same
  notification but who could not, on account of poverty, ignorance
  and other disabilities join others in seeking reference under
G Section 18 get an opportunity to claim compensation at par with
  others. This section is aimed at removing inequality in the
  payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land under
  the same notification. To put it differently, this section gives a
  chance to the land owner, who may not have applied under
H
V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. SINGARENI COLLIERIES 1153
    COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

Section 18 for determination of market value by the Court to        A
seek re-determination of the amount of compensation, if any
other similarly situated land owner succeeds in persuading the
Reference Court to fix higher market value of the acquired land.
Therefore, Section 28A has to be interpreted in a manner which
would advance the policy of legislation to give an opportunity      B
to the land owner who may have, due to variety of reasons not
been able to move the Collector for making reference under
Section 18 of the Act to get higher compensation if market value
is revised by the Reference Court at the instance of other land
owners, whose land is acquired under the same notification.         c
Of course, this opportunity can be availed by filing application
within the prescribed period. In Union of India v. Pradeep
Kumari (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that
Section 28A is in the nature of a beneficent provision intended
to remove inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and     D
poor land owners, who are not able to take advantage of the
right of reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act
and such a provision should be interpreted in a manner which
advances the policy of legislation.

      10. In Union of India v. Munshi Ram (supra), a two-Judge      E
Bench considered the meaning of the word 're-determination'
appearing in Section 28A and held that compensation payable
to the applicant under Section 28A should be at par with what
is finally payable to those who sought reference under Section
18 of the Act and if the compensation payable to the latter         F
category is reduced by the superior court, the one who gets
higher compensation under Section 28A may be directed to
refund the excess amount. What was emphasized by the two-
J udge Bench was that re-determination of the amount of
compensation under Section 28A must be commensurate with            G
the compensation payable to those who had sought reference
under Section 18 and if the higher court reduces the amount
of compensation payable in terms of the order of the Reference
Court, then those making application under Section 28A must
be asked to refund the excess amount. A somewhat similar            H
    1154       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2010] 11 S.C.R.


A   view was expressed in Kendriya Karamchari Sehkari Grah
    Nirman Samiti Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) in the
    following words:

         "It is true that once the Reference Court decides the matter
         and enhances the compensation, a person who is
B        otherwise eligible to similar relief and who has not sought
         reference, may apply under Section 28-A of the Act. If the
         conditions for application of the said provision have been
         complied with, such person would be entitled to the same
         relief which has been granted to other persons seeking
J        reference and getting enhanced compensation. But. it is
         equally true that if the Reference Court decides the matter
         and the State or acquiring body challenges such enhanced
         amount of compensation and the matter is pending either
         before the High Court or before this Court (the Supreme
0        Court), the Collector would be within his power or authority
         to keep the application under Section 28-A of the Act
         pending till the matter is finally decided by the High Court
         or the Supreme Court as the case may be. The reason
         being that the decision rendered by the Reference Court
E        enhancing compensation has not attained "finality" and is
         sub judice before a superior court."

           11. If sub-section (3) of Section 28A is interpreted keeping
    in view the object sought to be achieved by enacting the
    provision for removing inequality in the matter of payment of
F
    compensation, it must be held that a person who is not satisfied
    with an award made under Section 28A(2) can make an
    application to the Collector under Section 28A(3) for making a
    reference to the Court as defined in Section 3(d) of the Act and
    this right cannot be frustrated merely because as a result of re-
G
    determination made under Section 28A(2) read with .Section
    28A(1) the applicant becomes entitled to receive compensation
    at par with other land owners. There is nothing in the plain
    language of Section 28A(3) from which it can be inferred that
    a,, person who has not accepted the award made under Section
H
 V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. SINGARENI COLLIERIES 1155
    COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

28A(2) is precluded from making an application to the Collector     A
with the request to refer the matter to the Court. Of course, the
Court to which reference is made under Section 28A(3) will have
to bear in mind that a person who has not sought reference
under Section 18 cannot get compensation higher than the one
payable to those who had sought reference under that section.       B

     12. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that on the
date of making an award by the Land Acquisition Officer under
Section 28A, Appeal Suit No.978/1990 filed by other land
owners against the order of the Reference Court was pending
before the High Court. The same was finally disposed of on C
10.3.2000 and the matter was remanded to the Reference
Court for fresh determination of market value of the acquired
land. After reconsidering the matter, the Reference Court
passed order dated 17. 7.2000 and fixed market value of the
acquired land, which was substantially higher than the one D
determined by earlier order dated 30.10.1989. Therefore, the
appellant cannot be denied right to seek determination of fair
market value which has to be at least at par with market value
fixed by the Reference Court vide order dated 17.7.2000. The
mere fact that the application filed by the appellant under E
Section 28A(3) remained pending for more than 9 years and it
was only on 10.5.2000 that the Collector accorded permission
for making reference to the Court, cannot be made a ground
to deprive the appellant of his legitimate right to seek further
enhancement in the amount of compensation. If the High Court F
enhances the compensation payable to the other land owners,
the appellant will also become entitled to higher compensation.
If the High Court dismisses both the appeals, then too the
appellant will be entitled to compensation at the rate of
Rs.30,000/- per acre for the land falling in category I and G
Rs.15,000/- per acre for the land falling in category II. If, on the
other hand, the amount of compensation payable in terms of
order dated 17. 7 .2000 passed by the Reference Court is
reduced by the High Court then the amount payable to the
appellant will have to adjusted accordingly.
                                                                     H
    1156      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [201 OJ 11 S.C.R.


A        13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The 1impugned
    judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and it is held that
    the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) is
    maintainable. However, the Court before which O.P. No.31 of
    2000 is pending shall pass appropriate order only after a.nd in
a   terms of judgment of Appeal Suit Nos.688 and 1643 of 2001
    by the High Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

    K.K.T.                                        Appeal allowed.