UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v.

BABU SINGH AND ORS.

DECEMBER 4, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 :

S.8-Acquisition of lan~Award by arbitrator-Wiit petition by land C owners seeking direction for reference under s.28-A of Land Acquisition Act-Held, s.28-A of Land Acquisition Act has no application to acquisition under the Act-Wivng concession made by counsel does not bind the party.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

S.28-A-Redetermination of compensation-Held, provision not applicable to acquisition of land made under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.

Certain lands of the respondents were acquired under s.8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 for the purpose of defence. The arbitrator determined the compensation by his award dated 19.1.1985. Thereafter the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking directions for a reference under s.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Counsel for the Union of India conceded the High Court that a reference could be made under s.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed the appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no G application when the land is acquired under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. It is a case of total lack of jurisdiction, and, therefore, wrong concession made by the counsel does not bind the Union of India in that behalf. (155-H, 156-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11933 of

H 1995

15-t

U.0.1. v. BABU SINGH 155

From the Judgmeut and Order dated 29.10.87 of the Punjab & A Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2482 of 1987.

N.N. Goswamy, S.D. Sharma, Anil Katiyar and P. Parmeswaran (NP) for the Appellants.

Ujjagar Singh and Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned. Substitution allowed.

Leave granted.

In view of the fact that Mrs. Naresh Bakshi learned counsel took notice on behalf of the proposed legal representatives of the dtl.ceased respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 9 the relevancy to give the particulars as phinted out by the office, no longer subsists.

The only question is whether reference under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable to the land acquired under the Defence of India Act. Initially, and extent of 1230.8 acres of land including the land of the respondents situated in Bhatinda in Punjab State was requisitioned for the purpose of Defence of India. Obviously the acquisition was under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act, 1952. An arbitrator was appointed under Section 8 [3] of the Act. The arbitrator in his award dated 19th January, 1985 determined the amount of compensation. Subsequent thereto, a writ Petition seeking direction for reference under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984, was filed in the High Court by the respondents.

The counsel appearing for the Union of India in the High Court had conceded as mentioned in the impugned order that a reference could be made under Section 28-A and the award could be decided within two G months from that date. Assailing that order dated 29th October, 1987 of the High Court in the abovesaid writ petition, viz, W.P. No. 2482/87, this appeal by special leave has been filed.

Shri Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India contended that Section 28-A has no application to the acquisition of H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A the land under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. We find force in the contention. Shri Ujjagar Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents contended that since the counsel appearing for the Union of India has conceded before ti.te High Court the State is bound by the concession and that, therefore, there is nothing wrong

in the order passed by the High Court. It is difficult to accept the contention. It is a case of total lack of jurisdiction since Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act has no application when the land is acquired under the Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act. Therefore, wrong concession made by the counsel does not bind the Union of India in that behalf.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.