AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal is directed against an order dated 27th August, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in relation to the compensation payable for acquisition of the property of the writ petitioners under Act II of 1948. The learned Single Judge, on interpretation of Section 28A of Act I of 1894 read with Section 8 of Act II of 1948 which has since been repealed, held that on a beneficial interpretation of Section 28A of the Act I of 1894 the writ petitioners are entitled to enhance compensation.
It is not a dispute that the land of the petitioners in question was acquired prior to 1996. The Collector made and published an award on 5th June, 1996. The petitioners did not contemporaneously raise any dispute under Section 8 of the said Act and received the compensation, awarded by the Collector. Act II of 1948 was temporary in nature and died its natural death on 31st March, 1997. The provisions of the said Act was never extended thereafter. The land of the petitioners was part of Mouza Routa. The appellant has acquired the entire track of Mouza Routa. One of the persons aggrieved by the award of the collector made a reference under Section 8 of Act II of 1948. Since the said provision is saved by Sections 9(3-A) and 9(3-B) of Act I of 1894, the District Judge as an Appellate Authority heard the matter and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector which has given rise to the present proceeding.
The question arose before the learned Single Judge was whether by reason of enhancement of the compensation in favour of Md. Saydul Islam similar benefit could be extended to the writ petitioners as "persons aggrieved" or "persons interested" although the writ petitioners did not make a reference under Section 8 of the Act II of 1948 during the life of the said Act. In the instant case, the Collector appears to be have refused to entertain the said application on a specious plea that the said Act would not apply to Act II of 1948 as the said Act was temporary in nature and died its natural death on 31st March, 1997. The learned Single Judge considering the provisions of Act I and Act II of the Land Acquisition Act held that the writ petitioners are the persons aggrieved and are entitled to claim enhanced compensation under Section 28A of Act I of 1894 and accordingly, directed the Collector to consider the application for enhancement of compensation. This order gives rise to the present appeal.
Mr. Sengupta, learned Counsel representing the appellants has strenuously argued before us that the benefit of Act II of 1948 cannot be extended to a proceeding not covered under Act I of 1894 and accordingly, the question of re-determination of compensation as envisaged under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could not be made applicable to the writ petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners did not avail of the benefit under Section 8 of the Act II of 1948 when the said Act was in operation and after the said Act had lapsed the petitioners cannot take advantage on the basis of determination made in respect of a contiguous plot owner under Act II of 1948.
Mr. Sengupta further submits that Section 28A would be applicable provided the land is acquired under Act I of 1894. He further submits that Section 28A of Act I of 1894 can only be invoked if the person aggrieved has made a reference under Section 8 of Act II of 1948.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that merely because the writ petitioners did not raise any dispute contemporaneously with the Collector soon after the award was passed, the writ petitioners should not be dis-entitled to make a claim of enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Act I of 1894 and under Section 8(2) of the Act II of 1948, the provisions of Sections 25 to 28A of Act I of 1894 were made applicable. On a harmonious interpretation of Section 8(2) of Act II of 1948 with Section 28A of Act I of 1894 the Collector should have accepted the said application for enhanced compensation and decided the said application in accordance with law.
We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge and taken into consideration Section 8 of Act II of 1948 and Sections 9(3a), 9(3b) and 28A of Act I of 1894 in order to appreciate the rival submissions. There cannot be any doubt that both Act I of 1894 and Act II of 1948 are for the benefit of the land losers. The statute is a beneficial statute. The statute aimed at ameliorating the poverty and inequality. The right to property is no more a fundamental right. The state can acquire land in accordance with law. There are the acts under which the properties were acquired.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners that the said statutes being beneficial in nature in interpreting the various provisions any interpretation that are likely to cause hardship to the land losers in receiving compensation may be avoided. A beneficial interpretation of the said statutes in favour of the land losers is required to remove the inequality that might result from payment of a higher compensation for similar land as opposed to a lesser compensation determined by the same authority. Even under Section 8 of the Act II of 1948 the adjudicating authority was to be guided by Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It matters little whether Act II of 1948 died its natural death in 1997 as such proceeding, in our view, was saved by Sections 9(3-A) and 9(3-B) of Act I of 1894.
Provisions under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was incorporated in Section 8(2) of the Act II of 1948 and it would be absurd to suggest that a land that was acquired under Act II of 1948 a land looser aggrieved by such proceeding would get less benefit than the benefit under Section 28A of the Act I of 1894 merely because that the said Act was temporary in nature and was not extended beyond the said period of time. We presume that the contention of the appellant is that this benefit could have been extended to the writ petitioners had the said temporary statute continued to exist in the statute book after 1997.
In Union of India & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumari & Ors. reported at AIR 1995 SC 2259 the Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 came up for consideration. The apex court has interpreted the said Section in paragraph 9 of the said report. In interpreting the said section the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the Statement of Objects and Reasons in interpreting the said Section. It was held that the said Section was introduced to remove inequality in the payment of compensation for same or similar quality of land arising on account of inarticulate and poor people not being able to take advantage of the right of reference of the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The expression "persons interested" in Section 28 A of Act I of 1894 is intended to grant relief to poor, illiterate, ignorant and inarticulate people. (See. State of Orissa and Ors. vs. Chitrasen Bhoi reported a (2009) 17 SCC 74.
In this case, a reference would have been raised under Section 8 of Act II of 1948 but merely because the person has accepted the award and did not contemporaneously raise any objection, determination of a higher compensation in a reference under Section 8 of Act II of 1948 at the instance of a contiguous plot owner would not denude him to claim redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of Act of 1894 as the object of the said Section is to compensate the persons who have been paid less amount of compensation for the same nature of the land.
On such consideration, we are in agreement with the judgment passed by Justice Tandon directing the Collector to reconsider the application filed by the writ petitioners for enhancement of compensation. Moreover, we feel that in a socialistic republic the duty of a welfare State is to ensure fair treatment and equality. Section 28A intends to achieve such purpose.
We are not mindless of the fact that the acquisition may be for larger public interest but sufferings of the individuals who have been thrown out of their land cannot be ignore. He becomes homeless. The compensation should be fair so that he can sustain himself. It was for this purpose that Section 28A gives a right to claim a re-determination of compensation provided a person is interested and also aggrieved by the award make a written application within three months from the date of the award of the court to the collector.
It is true that the benefit of the person who had made a reference under Section 18 of Act I of 1894 or Section 8 of Act II of 1948 is extended to all other interested and aggrieved persons but such right was conferred to ensure that inequality among some class of persons are not perpetrated. The Collector is accordingly directed to dispose of the application within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law.
MAT 1539 of 2018 and CAN 931 of 2019 are accordingly disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.