February 7, 2018
A Bench of Supreme Court Judges, Justice R. K Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre passed Judgment in Union of India & Anr v. Pushpavathi & Ors. Etc, CA No. 1632-1641 of 2018 and 1643-1643 of 2018.
The facts of the case are Union of India through Secretary, Revenue Department, Pondicherry and the second appellant is the Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer. The appellants were respondents whereas the respondents, who are the landowners, were writ petitioners in the writ petitions before the High Court.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, the Government of Pondicherry on 22.12.1986 issued a Notification seeking
to acquire land bearing Survey No.2 Pt. of an extent of 3 Hec. 83 Ares 50 Cen
situated in village Pillaichavadi, Pondicherry for public purpose, namely,
establishment of Central University (Phase-V). This was followed by a
declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 12.03.1987. The acquired land
included the lands belonging to the respondents.
The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an Award (No.2/1987) under Section 11
of the Act on 01.06.1987 and determined the compensation for the land acquired
at the rate of Rs.318/- per Are. One landowner- Govindammal, whose land was also
acquired under the same notification, dissatisfied with the rate of compensation
awarded by the LAO, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil
Court for re-determination of the rate of compensation for his acquired land.
The Reference Court, by its award dated 09.05.1989 in reference case No. L.A.O.P.
No.337/88 enhanced the rate of compensation of the acquired land from Rs.318/-
per are to Rs.1000/- per Kuzhi (Rs. 1868/- per Are).
The landowners having come to know of the passing of the award by the Reference
Court enhancing the compensation referred above filed applications under Section
28A of the Act to the Collector (LAO) on 08.08.1991 for re- determination of
compensation payable to them for their acquired land in the aforementioned
acquisition proceedings. Though the Collector made an enquiry, as contemplated
under Section 28A of the Act, on the applications made by the respondents but no
final orders were passed. The respondents, therefore, filed writ petitions in
the High Court at Madras.
The High Court, by order dated 19.08.1998 allowed the writ petitions in part and
directed the Collector to dispose of the applications filed by the respondents
under Section 28A of the Act. The Collector accordingly disposed of the
applications by passing orders on different dates between 15.11.1994 and
22.11.1994 and re-determined the compensation payable to the respondents.
The respondents, having noticed that the Collector though re-determined the
compensation but had failed to award interest on compensation under Section 28
or Section 34 of the Act, felt aggrieved of the orders of the Collector and
filed a representation to the Collector praying therein for award of interest on
the compensation. By order dated 14.12.1998, the Collector rejected the
respondents' representation. Felt aggrieved, the respondents filed writ
petitions in the High Court and challenged therein the legality and correctness
of the order dated 14.12.1998 of the Collector declining to award interest on
the compensation determined by him under Section 28-A proceedings. The
appellants herein, who were the respondents in the said writ petitions, raised a
preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by
the respondents. Their main contention was that the remedy of the respondents
herein in such case lies in applying for making a reference to the Civil Court
as provided under Section 28A (3) read with Section 18 of the Act. It was
contended that if the respondents (landowners) were aggrieved by the order of
the Collector, which declined to award the interest on the compensation, their
appropriate remedy was to seek a reference to the Civil Court as provided under
Section 28A(3) of the Act, it being a statutory remedy available to them under
the Act but not in filing the writ petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The Single Judge by order dated 13.04.1999, overruled the
preliminary objection, allowed the writ petitions on merits and awarded the
interest as claimed by the respondents. The Union of India, being aggrieved by
the order of the Single Judge, filed intra court appeals before the Division
Bench. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals and
affirmed the order of the Single Judge (Writ Court). The Union of India has
filed these appeals by way of special leave before Supreme Court.
The court said that "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeals. In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court appears to be legal and proper. The short question, which arises for consideration in these appeals is, if the Collector declines to award interest on the compensation under Section 28A proceedings to the landowners, which is the legal remedy available to the landowners against such order–the landowners should approach the Civil Court in reference under Section 28A(3) read with Section 18 of the Act or should file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution."
The court up hled the decision of the High Court and dismissed the petition.
Tweet
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in Union of India & Anr v. Pushpavathi & Ors. Etc dated 6.2.2018
Medical college renewal of course, consider for next year, keep security deposit, Supreme Court
Land acquisition in Pondicherry, Government appeal dismissed by Supreme Court
88 iron ore mining leases granted 2nd renewal by Government in Goa cancelled by Supreme Court