(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 593 Dayal Singh and Ors Vs UOI and Ors

Land Acquisition Act, 1894/Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952-Section 28A/Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(3): Acquisition proceedings under 1952 Act-Applicability of Section 28A- Held: Provisions of section 28A not applicable since the mode and manner of compensation payable for acquisition of land under 1952 Act and 1894 Act are different and distinct.

Agreement between parties under 1952 Act-With regard to compensation awarded for the property acquired-Passing of subsequent award of enhanced compensation for similar class of lands-Reopening of agreement-Permissibility of-Held: Agreement cannot be reopened in view of subsequent award-Further there being no provision in 1952 Act for re-determination ofcompensation such right cannot be invoked by reading the same into the statute-Interpretation of Statutes.

Appellant's lands were requisitioned and later on acquired for establishment of Military Cantonment by the respondents. Appellants were awarded compensation for which they entered into agreement under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Appellants were also granted interest and solatium. However, several land owners did not accept the award and made a reference. Arbitrator awarded higher compensation, solatium and interest. Appellants then filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for re-determination of compensation. Land Acquisition Collector enhanced the compensation.

Respondents then filed writ petition on the ground that the said award was illegal and without jurisdiction, relying on *Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla, (dead) by Lrs. case that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act were not applicable to acquisition made under the 1952 Act. Single Judge of High Court set aside the award. Even the appeal was also dismissed. Hence the present appeals.

Appellants inter alia contended that in *Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla, (dead) by Lrs. case this Court did not take into consideration the question that if the provisions for grant of solatium and interest in terms of Section 23A(1) and 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act would apply in relation to acquisition under the 1952 Act, thus there is no reason as to why proceeding under Section 28A would not be maintainable; that although Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act per se is not applicable to a proceeding under the 1952 Act, the said provisions should be read into therein; that in a case where the parties entered into an agreement in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of 1952 Act, there is no reason as to why the parties cannot enter into another agreement having

regard to the fact that the Arbitrator has awarded enhanced compensation for acquisition of similarly situated lands; that the criteria for determination of compensation being the same, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act should be held to be applicable being implicitly embodied therein; that the Collector himself having made an award, the respondents could not have filed a writ petition; and that the respondents having filed a writ petition after a period of eight years the same could not have been entertained.


Date of Letter / Judgment: