Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 17-08-2017 in case of petitioner name Bir Wati & Others vs Union of India & Another
| |

Supreme Court Grants Landowners Right to Seek Enhanced Compensation Under Section 28-A

The case of Bir Wati & Others v. Union of India & Another revolved around the right of landowners to seek enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing them to apply for re-determination of compensation despite their reference petition being dismissed as time-barred.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the Delhi government issued a notification on April 6, 1964, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire land for public purposes. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 on June 15, 1965. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on February 6, 1981, fixing compensation at Rs. 2,250 per Bigha.

The appellants, who were legal heirs of Jugal Kishore (the original landowner), were unaware of the award. They only received compensation in April 1998, nearly 18 years later. Upon realizing that other landowners had obtained higher compensation through reference proceedings, they applied for a reference under Section 18 of the Act, seeking re-determination of compensation.

The Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissed their reference petition as time-barred. The Delhi High Court upheld this decision, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

  • Whether landowners whose reference petitions are dismissed as time-barred can apply under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation.
  • Whether illiteracy and lack of awareness of legal proceedings justify granting an extension for filing an application under Section 28-A.
  • Whether the appellants could seek compensation at par with other landowners who had successfully challenged the LAO’s award.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments (Bir Wati & Others)

The petitioners contended that:

  • They were unaware of the award passed by the LAO and did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act.
  • The delay in receiving compensation (18 years) prevented them from filing a reference under Section 18 within the prescribed time.
  • Other landowners whose lands were acquired in the same proceedings had received higher compensation through reference proceedings, and they should be entitled to the same under Section 28-A.
  • Given their illiteracy and lack of legal awareness, their delay in filing under Section 28-A should be condoned.

Respondents’ Arguments (Union of India)

The respondents argued that:

  • The reference petition was correctly dismissed as time-barred, and no legal provision allows an exception.
  • Section 28-A requires applications to be filed within three months of the award in the reference case, and the appellants failed to do so.
  • The appellants’ lack of awareness and illiteracy could not justify an extension beyond the statutory limitation period.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them permission to apply under Section 28-A within three months from the date of the judgment.

“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.”

The Court held that:

  • Dismissal of a reference petition under Section 18 does not preclude a landowner from seeking re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A.
  • Given the appellants’ illiteracy, delayed receipt of compensation, and lack of awareness of legal rights, they should be granted an opportunity to apply under Section 28-A.
  • The appellants must file their application within three months from the date of the judgment (i.e., by December 17, 2017).
  • The Collector must conduct an inquiry under Section 28-A and determine compensation in line with the amounts awarded to other landowners.

Key Legal Observations

  • Section 28-A provides a remedy for landowners who did not file references under Section 18 but seek compensation at par with those who did.
  • The limitation period under Section 28-A is strict but can be relaxed in exceptional cases where justice demands it.
  • The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in this case.

Final Order

The Supreme Court directed the Collector to entertain the appellants’ application under Section 28-A if filed within three months and to determine the compensation within three months thereafter. However, the appellants were denied interest on the compensation due to their delay in filing.

Conclusion

This ruling affirms the principle that landowners should not be unfairly deprived of just compensation due to procedural technicalities. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that even those who miss deadlines for reference petitions have a legal remedy under Section 28-A, reinforcing equitable access to justice.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bir Wati & Others vs Union of India & Ano Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-08-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts