REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1622-1631 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4689-4698 of 2012]

Union of India & Anr. .. Appellants

Versus

Pushpavathi & Ors.Etc. .. Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1632-1641 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.20089-20098 of 2012]

AND

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1642-1643 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.21043-21044 of 2012]

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1

In CIVIL APPEAL NOs. ……… OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4689-4698 of 2012]

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from the final judgment and

order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos. 1384 to 1392 and

1755 of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the High

Court  dismissed  the  writ  appeals  filed  by  the

appellants  herein  and  affirmed  the  order  dated

13.04.1999 passed by the Single Judge of the High

Court  in  W.P.  Nos.5486-5494  of  1999  and  order

dated 13.07.1999 in W.P. No.11806 of 1999.  

3. The issue involved in these appeals is short and

in order  to appreciate  the same, few relevant facts

need mention hereinbelow.

4. The first appellant is the Union of India through

Secretary, Revenue Department, Pondicherry and the

second  appellant  is  the  Revenue  Officer-cum-Land

2

Acquisition  Officer.  The  appellants  herein  were

respondents  whereas  the  respondents  herein,  who

are the landowners, were writ petitioners in the writ

petitions before the High Court.

5. In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  under

Section  4  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act“), 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 herein.

6. The  Land Acquisition  Officer  (LAO)  passed an

Award (No.2/1987) under Section 11 of the Act on

3

01.06.1987 and determined the compensation for the

land acquired at the rate of Rs.318/- per Are.

7. 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).  

8. The  respondents  (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

4

of compensation payable to them for their acquired

land in the aforementioned acquisition proceedings.  

9. 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  (W.P  No.  10649 of  1996 etc.)  in  the

High Court at Madras.

10.  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.

11. The  respondents,  having  noticed  that  the

Collector though re-determined the compensation but

5

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.  

12. 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.  

13. 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

6

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.  

14. 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

7

Judge (Writ Court).  It is against this judgment, the

Union  of  India  has  filed  these  appeals  by  way  of

special leave before this Court.

15. Heard  Mr.  R.  Venkataramani,  learned  senior

counsel  for  the  appellants  and  Mr.  G.

Sivabalamurugan and Mr. P. Jegan, learned counsel

for the respondents.        

16. Mr.  R.  Venkataramani,  learned senior  counsel

for the appellants while assailing the legality and the

correctness of the impugned judgment, reiterated the

same submissions, which were unsuccessfully urged

before the High Court.

17. While  elaborating  his  submissions,  learned

counsel  contended  that  the  High  Court  erred  in

entertaining the writ petitions for deciding the issue

raised therein on merits.  

18. According to learned counsel, the issue relating

to non-award of the interest by the Collector under

8

Section  28A(2)  proceedings  is  triable  only  by  the

Reference  Court  (Civil  Court)  in  the  reference

proceedings, therefore, the remedy of the respondents

(landowners)  was  to  approach  the  Collector  under

Section 28A(3) of the Act for making a reference to

the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and then

pursue  the  issue  further  in  the  forums  provided

under  the  Act  but  not  in  filing  the  writ  petitions

before the High Court.

19. Learned  counsel  urged  that  the  non-award  of

interest  by  the  Collector/LAO under  Section  11  or

Section 28A(2) proceedings being a part of the award,

it attracts the rigour of Section 18 of the Act.  

20. Learned counsel urged that if there is any error

noticed in  the  award,  the  same can be  challenged

only  before  the  Civil  Court  in  the  reference

proceedings under Section 18 or Section 28A(3) of the

Act, as the case may be.

9

21. Learned counsel urged that when the Act is a

complete  code  in  itself  and  provides  therein  a

statutory remedy of reference under Section 18 read

with Section 28A(3) of the Act for determination of all

the issues pertaining to compensation payable to the

landowners for their acquired land, the High Court

should  not  have entertained the  writ  petitions  and

instead  granted  liberty  to  the  respondents

(landowners)  to  take  recourse  to  the  remedy  of

reference to the Civil Court under Section 28A(3) of

the Act.  

22. In  reply,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents

(landowners)  supported  the  reasoning  and  the

conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  High  Court  in  the

impugned judgment and contended that no case is

made  out  for  any  interference  in  the  impugned

judgment.

10

23. 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.  

24. 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.  

25. In order to decide the question arising in these

appeals, some relevant sections need mention.  These

Sections are Sections 11, 18, 23, 26, 28, 28-A and 34

of the Act which are mentioned verbatim infra.  

11

Section 11

“11  Enquiry and award by Collector (1) :- On the day so fixed, or any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which  any  person  interested  has  stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section  (1),  and  into  the  respective interests  of  the  persons  claiming  the compensation, and shall make an award under his hand of—

(i) the true area of the land;

(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and

(iii) the  apportionment  of  the  said compensation  among  all  the  persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information,  whether  or  not  they  have respectively appeared before him:

Provided that no award shall be made by the  Collector  under  this  sub-section  without the  previous  approval  of  the  appropriate Government  or  of  such  officer  as  the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf:  

Provided  further  that  it  shall  be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the  appropriate  Government  may  specify  in this behalf.

12

Heads under which the award is to be made, namely,

(i)  the  true  area  of  the  land;  (ii)  the  compensation

which in his opinion is payable to the landowners;

(iii) the apportionment of the compensation among all

the persons interested in the land.   

27. Section 18 provides a remedy to those persons,

who  have  not  accepted  the  award  of  the  Collector

passed under  Section 11 of  the  Act.  Such persons

can request  the Collector  to make reference to the

Civil Court to decide the issues.  These issues are:

first - relating to measurement of the land, second -

the amount of compensation, third - the persons to

whom the compensation is payable and fourth - the

apportionment  of  the  compensation  among  the

persons interested.

28. Section 23 of the Act provides six factors, which

are  required to  be  taken into  consideration by  the

Court  while  determining  the  compensation.

19

Sub-sections  (1A)  and  (2)  provide  for  payment  of

statutory compensation payable to every landowner

in addition to the market value of  the land. Under

sub-section  (1A),  the  landowner  is  paid  the

compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. of the market

value of the land whereas under sub-section(2), he is

paid at the rate of  30% of the market value of  his

land.  

29. Section  26  provides  the  form  of  awards.   It

provides  that,  first  it  shall  specify  the  amount

awarded  under  clause  first  of  sub-section(1)  of

Section 23 and also  the  amounts,  if  any,  awarded

under  each  of  the  other  clauses  of  the  same

sub-section  together  with  the  grounds  of  awarding

each of the said amounts.  

30. There  are  two  sections,  which  deal  with  the

payment of interest, namely, Section 28 and Section

34.  So far as Section 28 is concerned, it deals with

20

the payment of  interest on excess compensation. It

empowers the  Civil  Court  to  award interest  on the

excess amount awarded over and above the amount

by the Collector. It empowers the Court to direct the

Collector  to  pay interest  at  the  rate  of  9% p.a.  on

such excess amount awarded by the Court from the

date on which the Collector took possession of  the

land to the date of payment of such excess amount

into Court.  The proviso to Section 28 further enables

the Court to award interest on such excess amount if

the conditions specified in the proviso are fulfilled in

any acquisition proceedings in relation to the land.  

31. So far as Section 34 is concerned, it deals with

another  mode  of  payment  of  interest  to  the

landowners.  It provides that if compensation is not

paid or deposited on or before taking possession of

the land, the Collector shall pay interest at the rate of

9% per annum from the time of so taking possession

21

until it shall have been so paid or deposited. Proviso

to this section, however,  empowers the Collector to

pay interest at the rate of 15% p.a., if the conditions

specified therein are fulfilled in any acquisition case.

32. Section 28A provides for re-determination of the

amount of compensation on the basis of the award of

the Court. It enables the landowners to approach the

Collector  to  re-determine  the  amount  of

compensation payable  to  them on the  basis  of  the

award  passed  by  the  Court  in  the  cases  of  other

persons alike them whose lands were also acquired

under  the  same notification  of  Section  4  and  who

approached  the  Court  for  re-determination  of  the

amount  of  compensation  payable  to  them whereas

other landowners did not approach the Court along

with  them.   Such landowners  are  given a  right  to

make an application within 3 months from the date

of such award of the Court to the Collector and claim

22

therein the same compensation which was awarded

to other landowners by the Court. Sub-section(2) of

Section 28A empowers the Collector  to  conduct  an

inquiry and make an award determining the amount

of  compensation  payable  to  such  landowners.

Sub-section(3)  of  Section  28A   empowers  the

landowners  to  approach  the  Collector  to  refer

his/their  case to  the  Court  in case he/they  is/are

aggrieved by the award passed by the Collector under

sub-section(2) of Section 28A of the Act.

33. From  the  perusal  of  the  aforementioned

sections,  it  is  clear  that  while  determining  the

compensation  payable  to  the  landowners,  the

Collector is required to take into consideration three

factors,  which  are  specified  under  Section  11

whereas  the  Court  is  required  to  take  into

consideration  six  factors  specified  under  Section

23

23(1)  of  the  Act.   These  factors  vary  from case  to

case.  

34. Likewise,  we  find  that  Sections  28  and  34,

which deal with payment of interest on the awarded

sum, are attracted in the case where the conditions

specified  under  the  respective  sections

are fulfilled by  the landowner in his case.  

35. Similarly,  the  reference  to  the  Court  under

Section 18 is made by the Collector only when there

is a dispute as to the measurement of the land or to

the  amount  of  the  compensation  or  as  to  the

person(s) to whom the compensation is payable and

lastly,  regarding  the  apportionment  of  the

compensation  amongst  the  persons  interested  in

claiming compensation.   

36. In our considered opinion, the dispute relating

to  non-award  of  the  interest  to  the  landowners,

whether  under  Section  28  or  Section  34  is  not  a

24

dispute, which falls under Section 18 or/and 28A(3)

of the Act.  In other words, a reference under Section

18 can only be made by the Collector in respect of

those issues, which are specified under Section 18.  

37. A  dispute  relating  to  non-award  of  interest

payable to the landowners under Section 28 or/and

Section 34 of the Act is not specified under Section

18 and hence it is not capable of being referred by

the Collector to the Civil Court under Section 18 of

the Act.   It  is  also for  the reason that  payment of

interest is statutory in character and being statutory,

it is mandatory for payment once conditions specified

under Sections 28 or/and 34 are fulfilled.

38. It is true that once the interest is awarded by

the Court under section 28 or by the Collector under

Section  34  of  the  Act,  it  becomes  the  part  of  the

award. However,  it is hardly of any significance and

25

has no bearing for deciding the question of remedy to

challenge issue relating to the non-award of interest.

39. As mentioned above, such issue is required to

be decided keeping in view the wording of Section 18

of the Act, which specifies the issues on which the

reference can be made to the Court and non-award of

interest is not the issue specified in Section 18 of the

Act. In this view of the matter, no reference can be

made to the Court to decide the issue of non-award of

interest under Section 18 of the Act.

40. The  aforementioned  reasoning,  in  our  view,

equally  applies  to  the  cases  falling  under  Section

28A(2)  and  (3)  of  the  Act  because  any  dispute,

whether  arising  under  Section  11  or  28A(2),  is

referable  to  the  Civil  Court  in  reference  by  the

Collector under Section 18 of the Act.

41. This  Court  explained  the  object  and  scope  of

Sections 28 and 34 succinctly in the case  of  Shree

26

Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat,

(1991) 1 SCC 262 in the following words:

“16. There is inherent evidence in the wording of Sections 28 and 34 to show that the framers of  the Act intended to assure the payment of interest to the person whose land was acquired and it was not the intention to subject the said payment to procedural hazards. Section 34 lays down that “the Collector shall pay the amount awarded  with  interest  at  6  per  cent  per annum….” The legislative mandate is clear. It is a directive to the collector to pay the interest in a given circumstance. Section 34 nowhere says that the interest amount is to be included in the award-decree  as  prepared  under  Section  23(1) read  with  Section  26  of  the  Act.  Similarly Section 28 provides “the award of the court may direct  that  the  Collector  shall  pay  interest”. Here  also  the  award  under  Section  23(1)  read with Section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment  of  interest  under  the  section.  The interest to be paid under Section 34 and also under Section 28 is of different character than the compensation amount under Section 23(1) of  the  Act.  Whereas  the  interest,  if  payable under the Act, can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings under the Act,  the amount of compensation under Section 23(1) which is an award-decree under Section 26, is subject to the rules of Procedure and Limitation. The rules of procedure  are  hand-maiden  of  justice.  The procedural  hassle  cannot  come  in  the  way  of substantive rights of citizens under the Act.”

42. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of

the considered opinion that the dispute in relation to

27

non-award of interest can be raised by an aggrieved

person only by taking recourse to Article 226 of the

Constitution  in  writ  petition.  In  other  words,

reference under Section 18 or Section 28A(3) cannot

be considered to be an alternative statutory remedy

available to the landowner for getting the question of

non-award  of  interest  payable  under  Sections  28

or/and 34 of the Act decided by the Civil Court.  

43. This Court in the case of  Delhi Development

Authority vs.  Mahender Singh & Anr.  ,  (2009)  5

SCC 339 has also taken the  same view,  which we

have taken above, in the following words:  

“12. In view of what has been indicated above, the  conclusion  is  irresistible  that  while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution there is no scope for direction to pay interest in a manner not contemplated by either Section 28 or 34.”

44.   In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of

the view that the High Court was right in entertaining

the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  respondents

28

(landowners) and was eventfully right in allowing the

same on merits.

45. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  did  not

question  the  impugned  judgment  on  merits,

therefore, we need not examine the issue involved in

the writ petitions on merits.  

46. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find

no merit in these appeals. The appeals thus fail and

are accordingly dismissed.  

In C. A. Nos. ……… OF 2018 @ SLP (C)  Nos.20089-20098 of 2012 & C. A. Nos. ……… OF  2018 @  SLP (C) Nos.21043-21044 of 2012]

Leave granted.

These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  final

judgment and order dated 22.03.2010 passed by the

High Court of Madras  in W.P.(c) Nos.5596 to 5605 of

2010  and  dated  02.12.2011  in  W.P.(c)  Nos.

1556-1557 of 2006 whereby the Single Judge of the

High Court disposed of the writ petitions filed by the

29

respondents herein on the basis of the order dated

08.07.2009  passed  in  W.A.  Nos.1384  to  1392 and

1755 of 1999.  

In view of judgment passed in civil  appeals @

S.L.P.(c) Nos.4689-4698 of  2012, these appeals fail

and are accordingly dismissed.

………………………………..J (R.K. AGRAWAL)

          ..………………………………J.    (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

New Delhi, February 06, 2018

30