Case: V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. &amp; Another

2. The land of the appellant (20 acres 11 guntas) was acquired by the State Government in 1985 as a part of acquisition of large tract of land for mining operations to be undertaken by respondent No. 1 - Singareni Collieries Company Pvt. Ltd. By an award dated 3.8.1987, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs. 7,000/- per acre for dry land under cultivation (category I) and Rs. 6,000/- per acre for dry land which was kept fallow (Category II).3. On a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court, after considering the evidence produced by the parties fixed market value of Category I land at Rs. 10,000/- per acre and of Category II land at Rs. 9,500/- per acre. This did not satisfy the land owners, who filed Appeal Suit No. 978 of 1990 in the High Court, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Reference Court for re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to the land owners. The Reference Court reconsidered the matter and passed order dated 17.7.2000, whereby it fixed market value of the two categories of land at Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- per acre respectively. The appeals filed by the parties against the fresh determination of market value by the Reference Court are pending before the High Court.

Reasoning: 9. The above reproduced provision represents thedetermination to ensure that the goal of equality enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution and Articles 38, 39 and 46 thereof is translated into reality, at least in the matter of payment of compensation to those who are deprived of their land for the benefit of the State, its instrumentalities/agencies and even private persons. Section 28A also represents statutory embodiment of the doctrine of equality in matters relating to the acquisition of land. The Act which was enacted in 1894 and was amended after 90 years has the potential of depriving a large segment of the society i.e. theof their only source of livelihood. The scheme of Section 28A provide some solace to this segment of the society by ensuring that such of the land owners whose land was acquired under the same notification but who could not, on account of poverty, ignorance and other disabilities join others in seeking reference under Section 18 get an opportunity to claim compensation at par with others. This section is aimed at removing inequality in the payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land under the same notification. To put it differently, this section gives a chance to the land owner, who may not have applied under Section 18 for determination of market value by the Court to seekof the amount of compensation, if any other similarly situated land owner succeeds in persuading the Reference Court to fix higher market value of the acquired land. Therefore, Section 28A has to be interpreted in a manner which would advance the policy of legislation to give an opportunity to the land owner who may have, due to variety of reasons not been able to move the Collector for making reference under Section 18 of the Act to get higher compensation if market value is revised by the Reference Court at the instance of other land owners, whose land is acquired under the same notification. Of course, this opportunity can be availed by filing application within the prescribed period. In Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (supra), aBench of this Court held that Section 28A is in the nature of a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and poor land owners, who are not able to take advantage of the right of reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and such a provision should be interpreted in a manner which advances the policy of legislation.on (3) of Section 28A is interpreted keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by enacting the provision for removing inequality in the matter of payment of compensation, it must be held that a person who is not satisfied with an award made under Section 28A(2) can make an application to the Collector under Section 28A(3) for making a reference to the Court as defined in Section 3(d) of the Act and this right cannot be frustrated merely because as a result ofmade under Section 28A(2) read with Section 28A(1) the applicant becomes entitled to receive compensation at par with other land owners. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 28A(3) from which it can be inferred that a person who has not accepted the award made under Section 28A(2) is precluded from making an application to the Collector with the request to refer the matter to the Court. Of course, the Court to which reference is made under Section 28A(3) will have to bear in mind that a person who has not sought reference under Section 18 cannot get compensation higher than the one payable to those who had sought reference under that section.12. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that on the date of making an award by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28A, Appeal Suit No. 978/1990 filed by other land owners against the order of the Reference Court was pending before the High Court. The same was finally disposed of on 10.3.2000 and the matter was remanded to the Reference Court for fresh determination of market value of the acquired land. After reconsidering the matter, the Reference Court passed order dated 17.7.2000 and fixed market value of the acquired land, which was substantially higher than the one determined by earlier order dated 30.10.1989. Therefore, the appellant cannot be denied right to seek determination of fair market value which has to be at least at par with market value fixed by the Reference Courtvide order dated 17.7.2000. The mere fact that the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) remained pending for more than 9 years and it was only on 10.5.2000 that the Collector accorded permission for making reference to the Court, cannot be made a ground to deprive the appellant of his legitimate right to seek further enhancement in the amount of compensation. If the High Court enhances the compensation payable to the other land owners, the appellant will also become entitled to higher compensation. If the High Court dismisses both the appeals, then too the appellant will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/per acre for the land falling in category I and Rs. 15,000/per acre for the land falling in category II. If, on the other hand, the amount of compensation payable in terms of order dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Reference Court is reduced by the High Court then the amount payable to the appellant will have to adjusted accordingly.