Summary
The Court declined to reopen the company’s compensation redetermination under Section 28A after later appellate enhancement for comparable lands. The Collector had proceeded on the understanding that the reference award was final, and the company had neither informed him of pending appeals nor sought a statutory reference against his award. Its unexplained inaction and delay defeated discretionary writ relief.
Issues
- Whether the earlier Section 28A award should be set aside for fresh determination following subsequent appellate enhancement.
- Whether the company’s conduct and delay justified relief under Article 226.
Provisions considered
- Section 28A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The Court distinguished the precedent ordering reconsideration of an original redetermination application. On these facts, the company’s failure to pursue available remedies and its delay did not justify reopening the award. (¶¶ 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe company’s resources, conduct and unreliable explanation of knowledge and delay disentitled it to discretionary relief. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
Held
- The Collector’s record indicated that he understood no appeal or further challenge to be pending. There was no contention that he knowingly disregarded a pending challenge, and the company had not brought one to his attention. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The precedent relied on had rejected a second Section 28A application while ordering reconsideration of the first on its facts. It did not compel identical relief regardless of the present company’s conduct. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- The company had not requested a reference after the Collector’s award. Its explanation that it learned of appellate enhancement only later was unsatisfactory, and it did not explain the further delay in seeking writ relief even on its asserted date of knowledge. (¶¶ 5, 6, 10)
- Section 28A seeks equality of compensation for landholders who missed the original reference remedy, but this company’s inaction and delay disentitled it to relief under Article 226. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; High Court’s refusal of writ relief left undisturbed.