Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. The State of Gujarat and Anr.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- Kurian Joseph
- Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
- Navin Sinha
- Judgment Date
- 2018-04-24
- Court Decision / Holding
- The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
- Final Disposition
- Appeal dismissed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai
Respondents
- The State of Gujarat
- Anr.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Nachiketa Joshi
- • Ms. Sucheta
- • Ujjaval Kumar
- • Chetan Uppal
Counsels for Respondents
- • Shamik Sanjanwala
- • Ms. Jesal Wahi
- • Ms. Vishakha
- • Ms. Mamta D Singh
- • Ms. Hemanatika Wahi
Case Synopsis & Summary
This civil appeal concerns the scheme for redetermination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core question is whether an application under Section 28A for redetermination of compensation can be filed within three months from the date of the judgment of the High Court or Supreme Court passed in an appeal under Section 54. The Court held that redetermination under Section 28A is confined to an “Award” passed by the “court” under Part III (Sections 18 to 28A). The “court” as defined by Section 3(d) means a principal civil court of original jurisdiction; therefore, a judgment of an appellate court under Section 54 does not constitute an Award under Section 28A. If higher courts modify quantum, the Collector must wait for the final decision and then award as per the modified verdict. The appellant’s entitlement, if any, lies only in terms of Section 28A based on the Reference Court’s Award. The Court cites Jose Antonio Cruz Dos Rodriguese and Bharatsing and others to support the settled legal position. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and pending applications, if any, are disposed of with no costs.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant argued that Section 28A(1) permits redetermination of compensation on the basis of a Court’s award and within three months from the date of the Court’s award. They contended that the award referred to in Section 28A includes awards rendered by the Court under Part III, and that final appellate judgments under Section 54 should not bar redetermination if a higher court modifies the quantum. The relief sought was redetermination under Section 28A based on the High Court’s judgment passed in an appeal under Section 54.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that Section 28A applies only to an “Award” passed by a Court under Part III (Sections 18-28A). Appellate judgments under Section 54 fall under Part VIII and are not “Awards” under Section 28A. Therefore, redetermination cannot be sought from such judgments. If higher courts modify quantum, the Collector should await the final verdict and recompute accordingly; the appellant’s entitlement, if any, lies only under Section 28A based on the Reference Court’s Award.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jose Antonio Cruz Dos Rodriguese & another v. Land Acquisition Collector & another | (1996) 6 SCC 746 | Positive | Cited as precedent for the interpretation that redetermination under Section 28A relates to Awards passed by Courts under Part III. |
| Bharatsing and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others | (2017) SCC Online SC 1453 | Positive | Relied on and cited to reinforce the settled principle regarding Section 28A and the categorization of Awards vs. appellate judgments. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. The State of Gujarat and Anr. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.