Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ORISSA & ORSversusCHITRASEN BHOI
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1142
- Decided
- 16 September 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Section 28A application was filed within the three‑month limitation, the limitation cannot be contested, and the Collector may determine its maintainability based on settled legal principles.
Summary
The State of Orissa acquired land for a fish farm under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, awarding the original owner, Chitrasen Bhoi, Rs 2,500 per acre in 1975. Subsequent owners received a higher award of Rs 10,000 per acre in 1995, prompting Bhoi to file an application under Section 28A on 21 March 1995, within three months of that award, seeking the higher compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector rejected the application; the High Court allowed a writ directing the Collector to decide the application if maintainable, which the State appealed. The Supreme Court held that the application was timely, the limitation period cannot be reopened, and the Collector may assess maintainability based on established legal principles without revisiting limitation. It further affirmed that Section 28A benefits only poor, inarticulate persons who have not filed a reference under Section 18. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the Collector was instructed to decide the application accordingly.
Issues considered
- The application under Section 28A was filed within the prescribed limitation period.
- Whether the Land Acquisition Collector can consider the maintainability of a Section 28A application without addressing the limitation issue.
- Whether the applicant, having not filed a reference under Section 18, is eligible for relief under Section 28A.
- The scope and class of persons to whom Section 28A is intended to apply.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 28A, s. 4, s. 6
Subjects
Land acquisitionSection 28ACompensation redeterminationLimitation periodPoor and inarticulate personsMaintainabilityReference awardStatutory interpretation
Judgment
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R 558 I.
7
A STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
v.
CHITRASEN BHOI
(Civil Appeal No. 1271 of 2002)
WITH
B I.A. NO. 3 OF 2002
SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] j.
C LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
r
s. 28-A - Application for re-determination of I
compeosation - Scope of - High Court holding the
application to have been filed within time and directing the
o Collector to decide the same if found maintainable - Held: +
Application having been filed within 3 months of the award of
the reference court, no interference with the order of the High
Court on the ground of limitation required - Therefore, the
question of limitation is not to be agitated before Land
E Acquisition Collector - Legislature has carved out an
exception in the form of s.28-A and made a special provision
to grant some relief to a particular class of. society, namely,
poor, illiterate, ignorant and inarticulate people - It is made
only for "little Indians" - The provisions of s. 28-A refer to the
F "person interested" which means the original owner and that
original owner interested must further be a person aggrieved
by the award of the Collector - The Land Acquisition Collector
shall consider the issue of maintainability of the application
filed by respondent in the light of the settled legal proposition
without considering the issue of limitation - Newly added
G respondents, namely /CAR and CIFWA shall also. be heard
at the time of disposal of the application filed by respondent
no. 1 - Limitation.
Union of India & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumari & Ors. (1995)
H 558
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. CHITRASEN BHOI 559
2 SCC 736; State of Tripura & Anr. vs. Roopchand Das & Ors. A
(2003) 1 SCC 421; Mewa Ram vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987
SC 45, relied on
Union of India vs. Bantram (dead) by LRs. (1996) 4 SCC
537; Union of India & Ors. vs. Kamai/ Singh & Ors. (1995) 2
8
SCC 728; Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land Owning
Society Ltd. Bhatinda vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1991 SC
730; Babua Ram & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (1995) 2 SCC
689; G. Krishna Murthy & Ors. vs. State of Orissa, (1995) 2
SCC 733; D Krishna Vani & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1995)
2 SCC 735; Union of India & Anr. vs. Pr<ideep Kumari & Ors. C
AIR 1995 SC 2259; U.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 766;
Union of India vs. Shivkumar Bhargava & Ors. AIR 1995 SC ,
812; Kendriya Karamchari Sehkari Grah Nirrnan Samiti Ltd.
t Noida vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2009) 1 SCC 754; D
Des Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 753;
Union of India vs. Munshi Ram & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1716;
State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Marfi, Venkaiah & Ors.
. .. P,tlR 2003 SC 2949; Tota Ram vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1997)
6 SCC 280; Union of India & Ors. vs. Mangatu Ram. & Ors. E
AIR 1997 SC 2704; Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese
vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. AIR 1997 SC 1915;
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition
Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500; State of Punjab vs. Qaisar Jehan
Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604; Bhagti (Smt.) (Deceased) F
through L.Rs. vs. State of Haryana (1997) 4 SCC 473
,referred to
Case Law Reference:
AIR 2003 SC 2949 referred to para 8 G
(1997) s sec 280 referred to para 8
AIR 1997 SC 2704 referred to para 8
AIR 1997 SC 1915 referred to para 8
H -
~
t·
"!
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (AODL.) S.C.R.
~
•,
A AIR 1961 SC 1500 referred to para 8
AIR 1963 SC 1604 referred to para 8
. (1997) 4 sec 473 referred to para 9
(1996) 4 sec 537 referred to para 9
-B
(1995) 2 sec 728 referred to para 9
(1995) 2 sec 736 relied on para 9 /..
(2003) 1 sec 421 relied on para 9
c AIR 1987 SC 45 relied on para 12
AIR 1991 SC 730 · referred to para 13
(1995) 2 sec 689 referred to para 13
D (1995) 2 sec 733 referred to para 14 t
(1995) 2 sec 735 referred to para 14
A'R 1995 SC 2259 referred to para 14
E (1995) 2 sec 766 referred to para 14
AIR 1995 SC 812 referred to para 14
y
(2009) 1 sec 754 referred to para 15
(2004) 1 sec 753 referred to para 16
F
AIR 2006 SC 1716 referred to para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1271 of 2002.
G WITH .
I.A. No. 3 of 2002.
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.2.1999 of the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in OJC No. 9292 of 1997.
H
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. CHITRASEN BHOI 561
J.S. Attri, Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, P.P. Nayak, A
Harshna Mehra for the Appellants.
Merusagar Samantaray, V.K. Rao, Madhu Sikri for the
Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered 8
ORDER
I.A. No.3
c
... 1. An application i.e. I.A. No. 3 ha_s been filed by the
Central Institute of Fresh Water Acqua-Culture (CIFWA),
Bhubaneswar under the Indian Council of Agriculture Research
(ICAR) for their impleadment as Respondent. Mr. V.K. Rao,
learned counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted that
the land in dispute in fact had been acquired for the said D
applicants, therefore, the applicants be impleaded as parties
in this appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-
applicants have no objection in this regard. Consequently, the
applicants are impleaded as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in this
appeal. The I.A. is accordingly allowed and disposed of. E
·r Appeal No.1271 of 2002
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment
and order of the division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated
23.2.1999 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent for F
seeking direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to consider
his application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act').
~
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal, G
as stated in the petition, are that a huge area of land was
notified under section 4 of the Act in the official Gazette of the
State of Orissa dated 1.1.1973 (Annexure-5). The acquisition
was sought for establishment of the Central Institute of Fresh
Water Acqua-Culture, i.e., a Fish Farm. Declaration under H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A section 6 of the Act in respect of the said land. was made on
9. 7 .1973 and was published in the official Gazette dated
11.7.1973. The Land Acquisition Collector made award, so far
as the land of the present respondent no.1 is concerned, on
31. 7 .1975' assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.2500/
B - per acre. Respondent no.1 did hot agitate the matter further,
however, other persons whose lands stood notified by the same
notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of
the Act filed the reference under section 18 of the Act and the
same was decided vide Award dated 5.1.1995 assessing the
c market value of the land @ Rs.10,000/- per acre while deciding
Misc. Case No.362/94. The respondent filed application under
Section 28A of the Act on 21.3.1995 claiming the same market
value for his land. The Land Acquisition Collector vide order
dated 11.3.1997 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved
the respondent filed the writ petition which has been allowed
0
by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.
+
4. Shri J.S. Attri, learned senior counsel for the appellant
- State of Orissa has raised a large number of issues
contending that the application under Section 28A of the Act
E had rightly been rejected by the Collector as the same was not
maintainable. It had been filed at a belated stage i.e. after more
t,an 20 years of the date of award made under Section 11 of
the Act. The High Court has held that the application under
section 28A had been filed within limitation, however, the
F Collector has been directed to decide the said application,
provided, it is found to be maintainable. The order itself is
contradictory as the issue of maintainability solely depends
upon the issue of limitation and no other issuE: can be examined
by the Collector. Therefore, the High Court oughtrto have
G dismissed the petition.
5. On the other hand, Shri M. Samantaray, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no. 1 has vehemently opposed
the petition contending that the High Court has rightly beld that
the application had been filed within limitation and therefore,
H
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. CHITRASEN BHOI 563
1
no interference is required. The appeal is liable to be A
dismissed.
---t
6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Grievance has been raised by learned counsel for the B
appellant State that application under Section 28-A of the Act
was filed after 20 years and therefore it was not maintainable.
Law requires that the application be filed by the eligible person
within three months from the date of the reference award, on
the basis of which the application is being filed. The issue of c
limitation in this regard is no more res integra.
8. In State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Marri Venkaiah
& Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2949, this Court has dealt with the issue
+ of limitation and held as under:- D
"Plain language of the aforesaid section would only mean
that the period of limitation is three months from the date
of the award of the court. It is also provided that in
computing the period of three months, the day on which
the award was pronounced and the time requisite for E
obtaining the copy of the award is to be excluded.
Therefore, the aforesaid provision crystallises that
application under Section 28-A is to be filed within three
months from the date of the award by the court by only
excluding the time requisite for obtaining the copy. Hence, F
it is difficult to infer further exclusion of time on the ground
of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant ............. In
our view, with regard to the first contention that Section 28-
A is a beneficial provision, there cannot be any dispute.
-<;
However, the advantage of the benefit which is conferred G
is required to be taken within the stipulated time. A
landowner may be poor or illiterate and because of that
he might not have filed reference application but that would
not mean that he could be negligent in not finding out
whether other landowners have filed such applications. H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Whosoever wants to take advantage of the beneficial
1
legislation has to be vigilant and has to take appropriate
action within the prescribed time. He must at least be
vigilant in making efforts to find out whether the other
landowner has filed any reference application and if so,
B what is the result. If that is not done then the law cannot
help him .... " (Emphasis added).
While deciding the said case the Court placed reliance
,..
upon its earlier judgments in Tota Ram vs. State of u:P. & Ors.,
(1997) 6 SCC 280; Union of India ~ Ors. vs. Mangatu Ram
c & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2704; and Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R.
Rodriguese vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., AIR 1997
SC 1915. The Court further rejected the contention that
limit~tion would run from the date of knowledge distinguishing
its e.arlier judgments on fact and law in Raja Harish Chandra
D Ra{Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC +
1500; and State of Punjab vs. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963
SC 1604.
9. In Bhagti (Smt.) (Deceased) through L.Rs. v. State of
E Haryana (1997) 4 SCC 473, this Court held that a claimant can
seek redetermination of compensation on the basis of the
award of the Reference Court and not the judgment of the High
--Court and further held that only those claimants who had failed
to apply for a reference under section 18 of the Act are
F conferred with the right to apply for redetermination under
section 28A(1) of the Act. The same view has been reiterated
in Union of India v. Bantram (dead) by L.Rs. (1996) 4 SCC ·
537. In Union of India & Ors. v. Kamai/ Singh & Ors. (1995) 2
SCC 728, a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court held
· that provisions of Section 28A of the Act, as inserted by Act
G
No.68 of 1984, is prospective in nature and do not apply to an >
award made by civil court prior to 24.9.1984. The limitation of
three months for making application for redetermination of
. compensation is to be computed from the date of earliest
award made by the civil court.
H
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. CHITRASEN BHOI 565
~ However, a three Judges' Bench of this Court in Union of A
India & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 736
overruled the judgment in Union of India v. Kamail Singh (supra)
to the extent that application for redetermination may be filed
within three months from the date of first award of the Reference
Court observing that intention of the Legislature was not to B
restrict the benefif of the amended law, to the extent that a
claimant has to apply within limitation from the date of the first
,-1
award of the Reference Court. Thus, it is permissible even to
make an application on the basis of a subsequent Reference
Court Award. However, it must be within the limitation from the c
date of making of the said subsequent award. This view was
'.)
further clarified by this Court in the State of Tripura & Anr. v.
Roopchand Das & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 421.
10. In the instant case, admittedly the application was filed
-t within 3 months from the date of reference award, the applicant D
- Respondent No. 1 had relied upon. The appellant had not laid
down any factual position as under what circumstances the
application was time barred. Therefore, no interference is
required on_ this ground.
E
11. Admittedly, the High Court has directed the Land
Acquisition Collector to decide the application under Section
28A of the Act provided it is found to be maintainable, however,
the issue of limitation would not be agitated/ considered. In such
a fact situation the question does arise as to whether the Land F
Acquisition Collector can still examine the maintainability of the
application and if so, on what grounds?
12. The scope of provisions of Section 28-A of t~e Act was
considered by this Court in Mewa Ram vs. State of Haryana
AIR 1987 SC 45, and the Court placed emphasis particularly G
on para 2 (ix) of the object and reasons of the Amendment Act,
1987 which provided for a special provision for inarticulate and
poor people to apply for re-determination of the compensation
amount on the basis of the court award in a land acquisition
H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A reference filed by comparatively affluent land owner. The Court
observed as under:
"Section 28-A in terms does not apply to the case of the
petitioners ..... They do not belong to that class of society
for whose benefit the provision is intended and meant, i.e.
B
inarticulate and poor people who by rftason of their
poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of
the right of reference to the civil court under Sectior"! 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 .... " (Emphasis added).
C 13. This Court approved and reiterated the law laid down
in. Mewa Ram (Supra) in Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land ~·.
Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR
1991 SC 730. In Babua Ram & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
(1995) 2 SCC 689, the Apex Court again reiterated the law laid
D down in Mewa Ram (Supra) observing as under:- +
"Legislature made a discriminatory policy between the
poor and inarticulate as one class of persons to whom the
benefit of Section 28-A was to be extended- and
comparatively affluent who had taken advantage of the
E
reference under Section 18 and the latter as a class to
which the benefit of Section 28-A was not extended.
Otherwise, the phraseology of the language of the non--
obst~nte clause would have been differently worded ..... It
is true that the legislature intended to relieve hardship to
F the poor, indigent and inarticulate interested persons who
generally failed to avail the reference under Section 18
which is an existing bar and to remedy it, Section 28-A was
enacted giving a right and remedy for re-
determination ........ The legislature appears to have
G presumed that the same state of affairs continue to subsist
among the poor and inarticulate persons and they generally
fail to avail the right under sub-:-section (1) of Section 18
due to poverty or ignorance or avoidance of expropriation."
(Emphasis added).
H
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. CHITRASEN BHOI 567
14. Thus, it is apparent that the legislature has carved out- A
an exception in the form of Section 28-A and made a special
provision to grant some relief to a particular class of society,
namely poor, illiterate, ignorant and inarticulate people. It is
made only for "little Indians". The provisions of Section 28-A
refer to the "person interested" which means the original owner B
and that original owner interested must further be a person
aggrieved by the award of the Collector. In G. Krishna Murthy
& Ors. vs. State of Orissa, (1995) 2 SCC 733; D Krishna Vani
& Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1995) 2 SCC 735; Union of India
& Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumari & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 2259; and C
U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. State
of U.P. & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 766, it has been held by this
Court that a person who prefers Section 18 reference cannot
maintain an application under Section 28-A of the Act. The
benefit of such an exceptional rule cannot be extended to such
persons as it would be against the public policy. In Union of D
India vs. Shivkumar Bhargava & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 812, this
Court observed that the benefit of. the State policy which confers
certain beneficial rights on a particular class of person is meant
only for the person whose land was acquired and by necessary
implication "the subsequent purchaser was elbowed out from e
the policy and became disentitled to the benefit or the State
policy.
15. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments a
similar view. has also been taken by this Court in Kendriya F
Karamchari1Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd., Noida vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 754.
16. In Des Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 7
SCC 753 it was held by this Court that if a person has applied
under Section 18 of the Act and pursued the matter further, he G
is not entitled to maintain the application under Section 28-A
for re-determination of compensation. The Court further held-
that it is mandatory to file the application within prescribed
limitation, which runs from the date of the Award under Section
H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
"I
A 18 of the Act. While deciding the said case the Court placed ~
reliance upon its earlier judgments, including Scheduled Caste
Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. (supra).
17. In Union of India vs. Munshi Ram & Ors., AIR 2006
SC 1716, this Court has laid down the law that such an·
B application is maintainable provided a person has not filed an
application under Section 18 of the Act. The Court held that
Section 28-A seeks to confer the benefit of enhanced
compensation on those owners who did not seek Reference
under·Section 18 of the Act. In fact, under the said provision
c they are entitled for enhanced compensation decreed by the
Reference Court and further as the decreed amount stands
modified in appeal by the higher Courts.
18. Therefore, it is evident that an application under Section
D 28-A has to be dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer
keeping in mind the aforesaid settled legal propositions. ~-
19. Thus, it is evident that t~e submission made by learned
counsel for the appellant that the Land Acquisition Collector is
bound to enhance the compensation without considering any
E other fact, as the application has been held to have been filed
within limitation, is preposterous.
.f.
......_
20. In view of the above,I
we do not find anY-- Jorce in the
appeal. The appeal stands dismissed leaving the parties to
F bear their own costs. The Land Acquisition Collector shall
consider the issue of maintainability of the application filed by ~
respondent in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition
expeditiously without considering the issue of limitation.
Needless to say that newly added respondents, namely Indian
G Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) & Central Institute of
Fresh Water Acqua-Culture (CIFWA) shall also be heard at the
time of disposal of the application filed by respondent no. 1.
No cost.
RP. Appea'I dismissed.
H
.
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