- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tota Ram v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This special leave petition (SLP) arises from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 19-11-1996 in Writ Petition No. 12843 of 1994. The matter concerns land acquisition compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Following a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the reference court passed its award and decree on 18-5-1990. The petitioner, who did not pursue a Section 18 reference, later filed an application under Section 28-A on 22-7-1992. He asserted that he learned on 19-7-1992 about an enhancement of compensation in another reference case and sought redetermination of compensation at the enhanced rate, contending his application was within three months of this date of knowledge.
The Collector rejected the claim, and the High Court upheld that decision. The SLP challenges the High Court’s ruling, focusing on when the limitation period under Section 28-A begins to run.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the limitation period for filing an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, begins from the date of the applicant’s knowledge of an enhanced compensation award in another reference, or from the date of the reference court’s award itself.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which permits persons interested in other land covered by the same Section 4(1) notification—who did not seek a Section 18 reference—to apply in writing to the Collector within three months from the date of the “award of the court” for redetermination of compensation. The proviso to Section 28-A(1) excludes, for computing the three months’ period, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time required for obtaining a certified copy of the award.
Key steps in the Court’s analysis were:
- “Court” in Section 28-A refers to the Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction to which a Section 18 reference would lie (i.e., the reference court).
- The limitation period begins to run from the date of the reference court’s award. In this case, that date was 18-5-1990.
- The statute expressly provides only two exclusions in computing limitation: the day of pronouncement and the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the award. There is no statutory basis to compute limitation from the date of the applicant’s knowledge of the enhanced award.
- Accordingly, the petitioner’s plea that the three months' limitation should run from 19-7-1992 (the date of alleged knowledge) is unsustainable.
On these grounds, the Court found the High Court’s decision to be correct.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED — The special leave petition was dismissed.
Implications: The dismissal affirms that applications under Section 28-A must be filed within three months from the date of the reference court’s award, subject only to the statutory exclusions for the day of pronouncement and the time required to obtain a certified copy. The petitioner’s reliance on the date of knowledge is not a valid basis to extend or compute limitation. The decision confirms the Collector’s and High Court’s conclusions and has the direct effect of denying the petitioner’s Section 28-A claim; no broader implications or new precedent were articulated.
Order
1. This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, made on 19-11-1996 in Writ Petition No. 12843 of 1994.
2. Admittedly, on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), the reference court passed its award and decree on 18-5-1990. The petitioner filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act on 22-7-1992 stating that he came to know on 19-7-1992 that in another reference compensation for the lands had been enhanced and claimed compensation at the said enhanced rates as he had filed application under proviso to Section 28-A of the Act within three months of his knowledge. The Collector as well as the High Court have negatived the contention. The question that arises for consideration is whether the limitation for the purpose of application under Section 28-A of the Act begins to start from the date of the knowledge. Section 28-A reads as under:
“28-A. Redetermination 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 redetermined 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.
(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 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, 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.”
3. A reading thereof clearly indicates that a person whose land is acquired under a common notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act but who failed to avail of the remedy of reference under Section 18, is eligible to make a written application within three months from the date of the award of the Court enhancing the compensation. It has been interpreted by this Court that the “court” means Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction to whom reference under Section 18 would lie. Admittedly, the award of the reference court having been made on 18-5-1990, the limitation began to run from that date. The proviso to Section 28-A gives a right to the persons to obtain the certified copy of the award and decree and the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the award and the decree shall be excluded in computing the period of three months. In view of the express language, the question of knowledge does not arise and, therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the limitation of three months begins to start from the date of the knowledge is clearly unsustainable and cannot be accepted. The High Court, therefore, is right in its decision in that behalf.
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Alert