SHRI IRSHAD ALI AND ORS.versusHAZI ABDUL SUKHUR MOZUMDAR AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 528
- Decided
- 7 July 1997
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Since the appellants did not challenge the Reference Court's award, it became final and they are not entitled to any higher compensation.
Summary
The appellants, owners of a one‑third share in land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, were awarded compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was later enhanced by the Reference Court under Section 18. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which further increased the compensation. The appellants then sought a review of the High Court’s order under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC, but the High Court dismissed the review. On appeal, the court held that because the appellants never challenged the Reference Court’s award, that award became final with respect to their share, and they cannot claim any further increase in compensation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to a higher compensation after the Reference Court's award became final without being challenged.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 47 Rule 1
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 54
Subjects
Judgment
A SHRI IRSHAD ALI AND ORS.
v.
HAZI ABDUL SUKHUR MOZUMDAR AND ORS.
JULY 7, 1997
B (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Compensation---A ward of-Reference Court enhancing the compensa-
C tion--High Court further enhancing the compensation-Application for review ...
of the High Court's order dismissed-On appeal held, since the party had not
challenged the award of the reference court and the award has become final
it is not entitled to higher compensation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4460 and
D 4461 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.lQ.93/12.7.96 of the Assam
High Court in R.A. No. 1/95 and FA. No. 8 of 1989.
Shakeel Ahmed Syed for the Appellants.
E Vijay Hansaria, Smita Shankar and S.K. Jain for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
F This appeal arises against the judgment and order dated July 12, 1996
in Review Application No. 1 of 1995 and the main judgment dated October
8, 1993 in First Appeal No. 8 of 1989.
The admitted position is that the appellant is entitled to 1/3rd share
G of the acquired land. The total extent of the land acquired is 10 Bighas, 15
Khatas, 2 c;hattaks and 5 gondas. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded
compensation against which the parties sought reference for re-determina-
tion of compensation etc. under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act.
The Reference Court by its award dated September 7, 1988 enhanced the
compensation, and awarded compensation. To the extent of the claim of
H the respondent No. 1, namely, 3 bighas, 16 kathas, 1 chatak, namely 1/3rd
472
IRSHAD ALI v. HAS. MOZUMDAR 473
of the entire land, he filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land A
Acquisition Act. The High Court enhanced the Compensation. Thereafter,
the appellant filed his application under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC for review
of the order. After reconsidering the matter and the main order, the High
Court dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave. In view of
the fact that the total extent of the land is 10 Bighas, 15 kathas, 2 chattaks, B
5 gondas, as referred earlier, in which admittedly respondent No. 1 is
having 1/3rd share, the first respondent had waived his claim for higher
compensation for the above extent of the land. Since the appellants had
not challenged the award of the reference Court and the award has become
final to the extent of their share, they are not entitled to any higher
compensation for the extent of 1/3rd share. C
The appeals are therefore, dismissed. No costs.
G.N. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.