REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.8938 OF 2011

Bir Wati & Ors. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Union of India & Anr.        …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  09.03.2006  passed  by  the  High

Court  of  Delhi  at  New  Delhi  in  L.A.  Appeal

Nos.587-589  of  2005  at  Chandigarh  in  C.R.  No.

3823 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the

appeal filed by the appellants herein affirming the

order  dated  21.04.2005  of  the  Additional  District

Judge, Delhi in L.A.C. No.21 of 2000 dismissing the

reference petition filed by  the appellants-claimants

1

under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  as  barred  by

limitation.

2) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate

the short controversy involved in the appeal.

3) The appellants are legal representatives of one

Jugal  Kishore.  On  06.04.1964,  the  appropriate

Government  (Delhi)  issued  a  notification  under

Section  4  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for acquiring a

huge track of  land in nearby areas  of  Delhi.  The

acquisition was for a public purpose, viz., "planned

development of the area".  

4) It was followed by the declaration issued under

Section  6  of  the  Act  on  15.06.1965  followed  by

issuance of notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the

Act to all the interested persons whose lands were

acquired  pursuant  to  the  aforementioned

notifications.  The  Land  Acquisition  Officer  passed

2

the  award  (award  No.  1934-C/Suppl/80-81)  on

06.02.1981.  In  the  award,  the  Land  Acquisition

Officer (LAO) fixed the rate at Rs.20/25 per square

yard=Rs.2250/-  per  Bigha  for  paying  the

compensation to the landowners for their land.

5) The land belonging to Jugal Kishore was also

acquired in these acquisition proceedings along with

other  lands.  Jugal  Kishore,  unfortunately,  expired

pending these proceedings leaving behind his legal

representatives  (appellants  herein).  So  far  as  the

present  appellants  are  concerned,  they  were  not

aware of the passing of the award because they were

neither present when the award was passed and nor

were  served  with  the  notice  of  the  award  under

Section 12(2) of the Act and nor did they receive any

notice in the name of Late Jugal Kishore.

6) It was for this reason that though the award

was passed way back on 06.02.1981, the appellants

received  the  compensation  pursuant  to  the  said

3

award  on  13.04.1998  almost  after  18  years.  The

appellants  then  on  16.5.1998  applied  to  the

Collector under Section 18 (2) of the Act and prayed

therein for making a reference to the Civil Court for

re-determination  of  the  compensation  determined

by the LAO. The Collector forwarded this application

to the District Judge, New Delhi. It was registered

as L.A.C No. 21/2000.

7) The Additional District Judge, by order dated

21.4.2005  dismissed  the  reference  as  barred  by

time.  Since  the  reference  was  dismissed  as  being

barred by limitation, the merits of the case were not

gone  into.  The  appellants  carried  the  matter  in

appeal to the High Court under Section 54 of the

Act.  The  High  Court,  by  impugned  judgment,

dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of  the

Additional District Judge. In the opinion of the High

Court  also,  the  reference  made  by  the  appellants

was  barred  by  limitation  as  prescribed  under

4

Section 18 and was thus rightly dismissed by the

Civil  Court.  Against  this  order,  the  appellants

(landowners) felt aggrieved and filed the appeal by

way of special leave petition in this Court.

8) As  stated  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants,  several  other  landowners  whose  lands

were also acquired along with the appellants’ land

pursuant to Section 4 and 6 notifications referred

supra,  had  filed  reference  application to  the  Civil

Court  against  the  award  dated  06.02.1981.   The

Civil  Court  by  award  re-determined  the

compensation and enhanced it to Rs.12,000/- per

Bigha. It was stated that the Government accepted

the award of the reference Court (Civil  Court) and

paid  the  enhanced  compensation  to  those

landowners.

9) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case,  we

5

are  inclined  to  dispose  of  the  appeal  with  the

following observations and directions:

10) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Hansoli Devi &

Ors., (2002) 7 SCC 273, a two Judge Bench of this

Court referred three specific questions to the larger

Bench  of  Five  Judges  for  answer.  These  three

questions read as under:

“1. (a)  Whether dismissal of an application seeking  reference  under  Section  18  on  the ground  of  delay  amounts  to  ‘not  filing  an application’  within  the  meaning  of  Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

(b) Whether a person whose application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is dismissed on the ground of delay or any other  technical  ground  is  entitled  to maintain an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act?

2.  Whether  a  person  who  has  received  the compensation  without  protest  pursuant  to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and  has  not  filed  an  application  seeking reference  under  Section  18  is  ‘a  person aggrieved’  within  the  meaning  of  Section 28-A?”

6

11) So  far  as  question  1  (b)  with  which  we  are

concerned here, it was answered in Para 10 which

reads as under:

“10. So far as Question 1(b) is concerned, this is  really the same question,  as in Question 1(a) and, therefore, we reiterate that when an application of a landowner under Section 18 is dismissed on the ground of delay, then the said  landowner  is  entitled  to  make  an application  under  Section  28-A,  if  other conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled.”

12)    In the light of aforesaid law laid down by this

Court,  one  cannot  dispute  that  so  far  as  the

appellants  are  concerned,  notwithstanding

dismissal  of  their  reference  application  as  being

barred by limitation by the reference Court and the

High Court, they still  have a right to apply under

Section  28-A  of  the  Act  to  the  Collector  for

re-determination  of  the  compensation  payable  to

them on the basis of the compensation awarded by

the  reference  Court  to  other  similarly  situated

7

landowners whose land was acquired along with the

appellants’ land.

13) It is true that one of the requirements to apply

to the Collector under Section 28-A of the Act is to

make an application within three months from the

date of the award passed in other cases.  

14) In  this  case,  three  months  have  already

expired and the appellants were not able to make

the application within three months or thereafter till

date.  However, having regard to the peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case wherein we find that

firstly,  the  bread  earner  of  the  appellants’  family

namely Jugal Kishore died during the pendency of

the  proceedings  before  the  Collector  long  back;

secondly, one of the appellants  also expired during

pendency of this appeal as reported; and thirdly, all

the  appellants  are  illiterates  and  unaware  of  the

proceedings in question for years even after passing

of the award and are also unaware of the legal and

8

procedural requirements prescribed in the Act.  It is

due to these reasons, we are of  the view that the

appellants are entitled for indulgence.

15) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are

of  the  view  that  this  is  a  fit  case  to  allow  the

appellants to make an application to the concerned

Collector under Section 28-A of the Act within three

months from the date of receipt of this judgment i.e.

on  or  before  17.12.2017  praying  therein  for

payment of compensation to them in the light of the

enhanced compensation,  if  already found awarded

to  other  landowners  in  these  very  acquisition

proceedings by the reference Court.

16) This indulgence to apply under Section 28-A of

the Act is granted to the appellants by this Court in

exercise of our powers conferred under Article 142

of the Constitution which we do with a view to do

complete and substantial justice to the appellants.

9

17) Let  the  Collector  entertain the  application,  if

made by the appellants within three months from

the date of the order under Section 28-A of the Act

and hold an inquiry as contemplated under Section

28-A of the Act for determining the compensation, if

found  payable  to  the  appellants  under  the  Act.

However, the appellants would not in such a case be

entitled to claim any interest of any nature due to

delay on their part. The Collector shall  decide the

application  once  made  by  the  appellants  within

three  months  and  release  the  payment  of

compensation as directed hereinabove in favour of

appellants  after  making  proper  verification  about

their family relations with the original claimant etc.

18)  With  these  directions,  the  appeal  stands

disposed of finally with no order as cost.

              ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

       ……..................................J.          [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

10

New Delhi; August 17, 2017  

11