Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai Vs State of Gujarat and Another (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal seeking redetermination of land acquisition compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the basis of a High Court judgment passed in appeal under Section 54. The Court held that Section 28A permits redetermination only on the basis of an “award” passed by the “Court” under Part III of the Act. The Court referred to the statutory definition of “Court” as a principal civil court of original jurisdiction and observed that appellate courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 54 fall under Part VIII and are therefore outside the purview of Section 28A. Consequently, the three-month period contemplated by Section 28A relates to the award of the Reference Court and not an appellate judgment.
The Court relied upon Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese & Another v. Land Acquisition Collector & Another, (1996) 6 SCC 746, and referred to Bharatsing and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2017) SCC Online SC 1453, as having reiterated the legal principle. At the same time, the Court clarified that where the State, authorities or claimants have approached higher courts seeking reduction or enhancement of compensation, the Collector dealing with the Section 28A application should wait until the proceedings are finally decided and thereafter award compensation in accordance with the modified verdict of the higher courts.
On the facts, since the appellant sought redetermination directly in terms of the High Court judgment under Section 54, the Court held that such relief was unavailable and that any entitlement could only arise under Section 28A on the basis of the Reference Court’s award.
Cases Discussed
- Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese & Another v. Land Acquisition Collector & Another, (1996) 6 SCC 746 — Cited for the proposition that redetermination under Section 28A is based on an award passed by the Reference Court under Part III and that an appellate court judgment does not fall within the statutory scope of Section 28A.
- Bharatsing and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2017) SCC Online SC 1453 — Referred to as a recent judgment which had surveyed the decisions on the issue and reiterated the legal principle governing Section 28A redetermination.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF SUPREME COURT
Leave granted.
2. Whether an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) for redetermination of the compensation can be filed within a period of 3 months from the date of judgment of the High Court or Supreme Court passed in appeal under Section 54 of the Act is the question that arises for consideration in this case.
3. Section 28A(1) of the Act reads as follows :-
“ 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 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 application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:
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 the award shall be excluded.”
(Emphasis supplied)
It is clear from the opening words of the provision that the redetermination under Section 28A is available only in respect of an “Award” passed by the “court” under Part III of the Act, comprising Sections 18 to 28A (both inclusive). The “court” referred to in Section 28A of the Act is the court as defined under Section 3(d) to mean “… a principal civil court of original jurisdiction …”. Thus, the judgment of the appellate court is not within the purview of Section 28A. It is also to be noted that the appellate courts under Section 54 are under Part VIII of the Act whereas the redetermination is only in respect of the Award passed by the Reference Court under Part III of the Act. (See Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese & another v. Land Acquisition Collector & another1). In its recent judgment in Bharatsing and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others2, this Court has surveyed the decisions on this issue and reiterated the legal principle.
4. However, if the State/authorities/claimants have approached the higher Courts for reduction/enhancement of quantum of compensation, as the case may be, the Collector, under Section 28A of the Act, shall wait till a decision is finally rendered and thereafter award the compensation as per the modified verdict of higher Courts.
5. What the appellant seeks is redetermination of compensation under the Act in terms of the judgment of the High Court passed under Section 54 of the Act. In view of the settled legal position which we have explained above, the appellant is not entitled to such a relief; his entitlement, if any, is only in terms of Section 28A of the Act based on the award of the Reference Court.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
1 (1996) 6 SCC 746
2 (2017) SCC Online SC 1453
