ADVOCATE

TUMKUR

9880339764

HOW LAND ACQUISITION OBJECTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED

State Of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh & Ors AIR 1980 SC 319, Consideration of the objections was mandatory, It is also mentioned that to 'consider' is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination; to ponder; study, meditate upon, think or reflect with care. It is therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question is sine qua non for the making of the order. If the impugned order were to show that there has been no careful thinking or proper application of the mind as to the necessity of obtaining and examining the documents specified in the order, the essential requisite to the making of the order would be held to be non-existent.

The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested the Court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion.

In a broad, blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli was not off the mark even in law when he stated. "I repeat. . . that all power is a trust -- that we are accountable for its exercise -- that from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist". Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to affect some object which is beyond the purpose and intend of the power, whether this be malice laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad. If

considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impels the action mala fides or fraud on power vitiates the acquisition or other official act"

When law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order affecting prejudicially the interests of any person. The violation of the principles of natural justice on account of omission to communicate the reasons by administrative authority is liable to be challenged before courts.

WHEN LAYOUT ARE COMPLETE

The layouts are not complete. Sites are not formed. A Division Bench of High Court in M. Maniklal v. State of Mysore and Ors, 1968(1) Mys. L.J. 416, while dealing with a case under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 as to what constitutes a "layout", has held as follows.-- "We do not accede to the argument that the expression "layout" means no more than the making of marks on the acquired property for dividing it into sites. A layout to which Section 16 refers, includes every step by which an area of land is converted into building sites to render it suitable for construction of houses and buildings, and necessarily involves the formation of roads, arrangements for conservancy, sewerage, drainage, water supply and lighting, Section 25(2) of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 which insists on the provision for such amenities in the case of a private layout, indicates that such is the true character of a layout. Section 24 which forbids the sale of sites by the Trust Board until the improvements enumerated in Section 23 are made, yields the same deduction. Such layout which is part of a development scheme reducers congestion in the existing are of the city, and contributes to the elimination of the privation caused by insufficient housing accommodation. So, it assists the expansion and the improvement of the city and so promotes the purposes of the Act. The expansion of a city and its improvement are purposes from which flows a direct public benefit and a purpose which is productive of results so advantageous to the public is a clear public purpose".

WITHDRAWAL FROM ACQUISITION

Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs M. D. Bhagwat & Ors AIR 1975 SC 1767 “Neither the Government nor the Commissioner could withdraw under s. 48(1) from the acquisition of any portion of the land which had been taken over by and vested in the Government.”

TAKING POSSESSION:-

Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs M. D. Bhagwat & Ors AIR 1975 SC 1767 “When Government proceeds to take possession of the land acquired by it under the Act. it must take actual Possession since all interests in the land are sought to be acquired by it, and there is no question of taking 'symbolical' possession as understood under the C.P.C. Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. How such actual possession may be taken would depend on the nature of land. It is not an absolute and inviolable rule that merely going on the spot and making a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient to constitute taking possession of land in every case. It is also not strictly necessary as a matter of legal requirement that notice should be given to the owner or occupant of the land that possession would be taken at a particular time, though it may be desirable to do so in order to eliminate the possibility of a fraudulent or collusive transaction of talking of mere paper possession, without the occupant or the owner ever knowing about it.”

“When a public notice under s. 9(1) of the Act is published at a convenient place or near the land to be taken that Government intends to take possession, ordinarily there would be no question of resisting or impeding the taking of possession. Delivery of possession by the owner is not required and the Collector can enforce surrender under s. 47 if impeded. On taking possession either under s. 16 or s. 17(1), the land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land all interests are wiped out, and hence, the taking of possession must be taking actual possession on the spot and not symbolical possession; and surely it cannot be a possession merely on paper.”

INDIVIDUAL RIGHT MUST YIELD TO PUBLIC INTEREST

Supreme Court in the case of Chameli Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. , (1996) 2 SCC 549 held that, “in every acquisition by its very compulsory nature for public purpose, the owner

may be deprived of the land, the means of his livelihood. The State exercises its power of eminent domain for public purpose and acqtiires the land. So long as the exercise of the power is for public purpose, the individual's right of an owner must yield place to the larger public purpose. For compulsory nature of acquisition, Sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides payment of solatium to the owner who declines to voluntarily part with the possession of land. Acquisition in accordance with the procedure is a valid exercise of the power. It would not, therefore, amount to deprivation of right to livelihood. Section 23(1) provides compensation for the acquired land at the prices prevailing as on the date of publishing Section 4(1) notification, to be quantified at later stages of proceedings. For dispensation or dislocation, interest is payable under Section 23(1-A) as additional amount and interest under Sections 31 and 28 of the Act to recompensate the loss of right to enjoyment of the property from the date of notification under Section 23(1-A) and from the date of possession till compensation is deposited. It would thus be clear that the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable.”

UNDER BDA LAND ACQUISITION ORAL HEARING IS NOT CONTEMPLATED:-

The Commissioner, Bangalore ... vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. ILR 2006 KAR 318 The Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore v. H. Narayanaiah , examining the various provisions of the Improvement Act observed, that the Bangalore Act, as its preamble states, is really concerned with the "improvement and future expansion of the City of Bangalore and for the appointment of a Board of Trustees with special powers to carry out the aforesaid purposes. As an incident of this improvement and expansion it provides for acquisition of land also. It does not, however, contain a separate code of its own for such acquisitions. Relying on the aforesaid judgment a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , after considering the said argument held that the provisions of the BDA Act is in pith and substance for improvement of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and acquisition of land is only part of such activity and not the main activity. Acquisition of land is part of the power and not incidental thereto. Such power is conferred on the BDA as part of the improvement itself. For purpose of improvement of the City of Bangalore, if necessarily land has to be acquired the said contention has no substance. Two sets of provisions under Sections 4, &A and 6 of the LA Act are comparable with the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the BDA Act. Thus in substance there are provisions under the BDA Act to indicate the proposals for acquisition considering the objections thereto, sanctioning the proposal for acquisition and if such acts do not take place within a period of five years the proceedings would lapse. Further it has been held, under the BDA Act oral hearing is not at all contemplated. The requirement of the provisions of the Act would fee satisfied, if opportunity for filing objections had been given.

The judgment in Khoday Distilleries case has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , where it was held that, they are in entire agreement with the reasoning and also affirming the ultimate conclusions arrived at by the High Court in Khoday Distilleries case which in their view is squarely in conformity with the ratio of the earlier decision of the Court in the case of H. Narayanaiah. It was held, so far as the BDA Act is concerned, it is not an Act for mere acquisition of land but an Act to provide for the establishment of a Development Authority to facilitate and ensure a planned growth and development of the City of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and acquisition of lands, if any, therefor is merely incidental thereto.

The BDA Act so far as acquisition of land for its developmental activities are concerned in substance and effect will constitute a special law providing for acquisition for the said purpose of the BDA and, therefore, it cannot be considered to be part of the LA Act. Thus a scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for its implementation under BDA Act, cannot be stultified or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act, particularly of the nature of Section 4 or 5-A which has no application to the actions taken under the BDA Act.

SEVERAL AUTHORITIES LIKE SINGLE WINDOW COMMITTEE & ORS WERE EMPOWERED TO GIVE EXEMPTION TO ACQUIRE LAND:-

The BDA while according approval to the scheme/layout plan would impose a condition that a specific number of dwelling units shall be constructed for allotment in favour of middle and low income groups. Once the approval is given, necessary exemption would also be granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Government passed an order on 1-6-1995 authorising the BDA to permit Group Housing Projects to be undertaken by landowners in association with developers/institutions

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AGAINST GOVERNMENT WHEN IT PUBLICLY INVITED INVESTORS OFFERING FACILITY:-

The law on the point is well-settled. The Supreme Court in the case of Nestle India Limited, (2004) 6 SCC 465 has held that, the promissory estoppel long recognized as a legitimate defence in equity was held to found a cause of action against the Government, even when, the representation sought to be enforced was legally invalid in the sense, that it was made in a manner which was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed by statute.

In Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies , AIR 1968 SC 718, where it was held that, under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the Judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an ex parte appraisement of the circumstances in which the obligation has arise.

In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh , AIR 1979 SC 621, it was held that where the Government makes a promise known or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee acting in reliance on it, alters his position the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution. Whatever be the nature of the function which the Government is discharging, the Government is subject to the rule of promissory estoppel and if the essential ingredients of this rule are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it. The only recognized limitations of this principle are, firstly, since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. But it is only if the Court is satisfied, on proper and adequate material placed by the Government, that overriding public interest requires that the Government should not be held bound by the promise but should be free to act unfettered by it, that the Court would refuse to enforce the promise against the Government. Secondly, no representation can be enforced which is prohibited by law in the sense that the person or authority making the representation or promise must have the power to carry out the promise. If the power is there, then subject to the preconditions and limitations noted earlier, it must be exercised. Thus, if the statute does not contain a provision enabling the Government to grant exemption, it would not be possible to enforce the representation against the Government, because the Government cannot be compelled to act contrary to the statute.

TAKING POSSESSION UNDER LAND ACQUISITION ACT

Banda Development Authy, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors. on 26 April, 2011 Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly

The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:

i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land.

ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession.

iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned authority will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken.

iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such document. v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in furtherance of the particular

public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken.

LOCAL AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITIONS

In the case B.K. ANNAPPA v. THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HASSAN AND ORS., ILR 1999 KAR 1147 it has been held as under:- "22. From the above provisions, it is clear that the Authority cannot undertake any development scheme without seeking the previous approval of the Government. From the said provision, it also manifests that the Government's approval is required also for incurring the expenditure for execution of said development scheme which will also include the expenditure against employment of manpower by way of daily wages or contract basis restricting its tenure till completion of the scheme. Therefore, the Commissioner is wrong in assuming that he or the Authority can make temporary or daily wages appointments under the guise of undertaking development schemes".

BASICS OF ACQUISITION

Supreme Court in the case of MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD v. MOHD SHAFI AND ANR., (1992) 2 SCC 168 where the Supreme Court held as under:- "It is settled law that the process of acquisition has to start with a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of notification under Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any notification which is aimed at depriving a man of his property, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. The object of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act is twofold. First, it is a public announcement by the government and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land, as specified therein, is needed or is likely to be needed by the government for the "public purpose" mentioned therein; and secondly, it authorises the departmental officers or officers of the local authority, as the case may be to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. The notification has to be published in the locality and particularly persons likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on notice that such an activity is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give with sufficient clarity not only the "public purpose" for which the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the "locality" where the land is situate with as full a description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the "interested" persons to know as to which land is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing objections etc., since it is open to such persons to canvass the non-suitability of the land for the alleged "public purpose" also. If a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it not only vitiates the notification, but also renders all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition, bad."

In law there is no prohibition for acquiring a land converted from agricultural use to either residential use, industrial use or commercial use from being acquired for the purpose of formation of a layout. The conversion of land from one user to another user would not in any way affect the power of the Government to acquire such land. If the Government proposes to acquire a converted land probably they have to pay a higher amount of compensation than what they have to pay to agricultural lands taking into consideration the potential user of the land and the improvements which the owner of the land has made consequent to such conversion. But, such conversion does not take away the power of the authorities or the Government to acquire the said land for the formation of a layout.

Similarly, there is no substance in the contention that having regard to the user of the land acquired, namely non-residential purpose, industrial purpose, commercial purpose, lands used for nursery and garden, cannot be used for residential purpose without there being appropriate permission obtained from the planning authority. In fact, in this regard the learned counsels for the petitioners relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of B.R. BALIGA AND ORS. v. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDUPI, D.K. AND ANR., 1995(4) Kar. L.J. 408 where it has been held that when land which is acquired is an agricultural land acquired for the purpose of forming a residential layout, the permission of the Planning Authority is required for the change of land use. Without such permission the land cannot be used for residential purposes. That again does not affect the power of the Authority or the Government to acquire the land. It is only after acquisition of the land that the authority can seek permission for change of land use. The very fact that there is a provision for change of land use implies that the owner of the land is entitled to approach the planning authorities for change of land use. But, such a request is to be made by

the owner of the land. The ownership of the land could be acquired by the Authority by the mode of acquisition. Therefore, not obtaining prior permission from the Planning Authority for change of land use does not in anyway vitiate the acquisition of land. In fact while according sanction under Section 18(3) of the Act, the Government has categorically stated that the sanction sought for is granted subject to the condition that the Authority shall obtain permission for change of land use. Therefore, not obtaining prior permission for change of land use would in no way vitiate the acquisition proceedings.

INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE IS MORE IN NOW A DAYS SAYS COURT

The Division Bench of this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Aiyappa Yamunappa reported in ILR 1986 Kar 340 recognised the fact that the income which an agriculturist was securing was rather fantastic when compared to the income that he got 8 to 10 years prior, by adopting orthodox method of agriculture. According to the Division Bench, by passage of time and scientific advancement in agricultural operations, the use of fertilizers, it must be recognized that the yield cannot reduce, but only increase.

KHARAB LAND IN ACQUISITION

Sadashivaiah And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. ILR 2003 KAR 5088 In this regard it is necessary to know what a kharab land is and what are the rights which flow. Kharab land is so called because it is not cultivable and is classification made for purposes of revenue exemption, Kharab land is also capable of ownership and cannot be regarded as an adjunct to cultivable land which gets transferred along with the cultivable land. Acquisition of title to the kharab land is similar to acquisition of title to the cultivable land. The word "Phut Kharab" and 'pot' kharab mean and have reference to a land which is included in an assessed survey number but which is unflit for cultivation. Every pot kharab land does not belong to government. For the purpose of assessment, the uncultivable portion of the land or phut kharab portion of the land is excluded from consideration on the ground that it is cultivable. But it does not cease to belong to the owner of the survey number. In volume I of the Mysore Revenue Manual, the word kharab is explained in this way. The expression 'phut kharab' is similar to the expression 'pot kharab'. That is so, is clear from the Mysore Revenue Survey Manual where at page 68 the words 'pot kharab' land is defined thus: "(13). Pot kharab means a piece of pieces of land classed as unarable and included in a survey number". The description has no relevance to ownership. The expression put kharab is explained in Gupte's book on the Bombay Land Revenue Code in the following words at page 278"- "By the term 'pot kharab' is meant 'barren or uncultivable land included in an assessed survey number' and includes 'any land comprised in a survey number. Which from any reason is held not to be likely to be brought under cultivation..........." 31. The words phut Kharab, therefore, mean and have reference to a land which is included in an assessed survey number but which is unfit for cultivation. After coming into the force of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 the word phut Kharab has been defined under Rule 21(2) as under-"during the process of classification, land included as unarable shall be treated as "Pot Kharab". Pot Kharab land may be classified as follows. (a) That which is classified as unfit for agriculture at the time of survey including the farm buildings or threshing flours of the holder; (b) That which is not assessed because, (i) it is reserved or assigned for public purpose; (ii) it is occupied by a road or recognised footpath or by a tank or stream used by persons other than the holders for irrigation, drinking or domestic purposes; (iii) used as burial ground or cremation ground; (iv) assigned for villager potteries." 32. Therefore, it becomes clear if the land falls within the category of 21(2)(a) it is not a government land, it belongs to the ownership of the petitioners. If it falls under 21(2)(b) then it belongs to the government and the petitioners cannot have a claim over the said land.

KIADB ACQUISITION

In so far as the acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 is concerned the same is dealt with in Chapter-VII of the KIADB Act. Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act corresponds to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. However, after hearing the objections of the owner or the occupier of the land if their objections are overruled and the State Government proceed to acquire the land and makes a declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act, on publication of such declaration the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Thereafter, the State Government by a notice in writing order the person in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the government. On taking such possession the government may transfer the land to the board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired. In other words unlike the Land Acquisition Act the land vest absolutely with the Government the moment a declaration is made under Section 28(4) even before possession of the land is taken and any award is passed. Therefore, under the KIADB Act if the acquiring authority comes to the conclusion the land that is notified for acquisition do not belong to the claimant and belongs to the government, the only way of terminating such a proceedings is by not issuing a declaration under Section 28(4). But once a declaration under Section 28(4) is issued as the land vest

with the government absolutely free from all encumbrances thereafter it is not open to the acquiring authority to refuse to pass an award on the ground that the land belongs to the government and not to the claimant in which event the Land Acquisition Officer is bound to pass an award setting out the true area of the land that is acquired, the amount of compensation payable for the said land and the person for whom the said amount is to be paid and if there is any dispute regarding apportionment, deposit such amount in a Civil Court and require the parties to settle the disputes inter se between them in the competent Civil Court as Section 30 of the KIADB Act makes it very clear that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner, the reference to Court, apportionment of compensation and the payment of compensation, in respect of lands acquired under the said Chapter.

1 KM BUFFER ZONE

C. Kenchappa And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Others 2000 (4) KarLJ 1, ILR 2000 Kar. 1072 “we hold that in order to maintain ecological equilibrium and pollution-free atmosphere of the villages, the authorities under the KIADB Act are directed to leave land area of 1 k.m. as a buffer zone from the outer periphery of the village in order to maintain a 'green area' towards preservation of land for grazing of cattle, agricultural operation and for development of social forestry and to develop the area into green belt. This would measure the preservation of ecology without hindering the much needed industrial growth thus striking a balance between industrial development and ecological preservance. …………. We further direct that whenever there is acquisition of land for industrial purpose or commercial or on non-agricultural purposes, except residential area, the authorities must leave 1 k.m. area from the village limit as a free zone or green area to maintain ecological equilibrium as stated above.”

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. Sri C. Kenchappa & Others AIR 2006 SC 2038, observed that there has to be balance between sustainable development and environment. This Court observed that before acquisition of lands for development, the consequence and adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for development that they do not gravely impair the ecology and environment; State Industrial Areas Development Board to incorporate the condition of allotment to obtain clearance from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board before the land is allotted for development. The said directory condition of allotment of lands be converted into a mandatory condition for all the projects to be sanctioned in future.

MUTATION OF NAME IN REVENUE RECORDS IS TO BE THERE FOR ANY OWNER TO CLAIM HEARING IN ACQUISITION PROCEEDS

Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ahuja Industries Ltd., v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court-3519 wherein it is observed thus: 12. This Court in Winky Dilawari (Smt.) and Anr. v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar 1996 (11) SCC 644, has token the view that failure to serve personal notices on the persons whose names have not been mutated in the official record of rights in pursuance to any sale in their favour does not vitiate the proceedings for acquisition. Similar view was taken in W.B. Housing Board and Ors. v. Brijendra Prasad Gupta and Ors. 1997 (6) SCC 207, wherein this Court observed: ........It is no part of the duty of the Collector to make a roving inquiry into ownership of the persona, We are of the opinion that the requirements of the law were met when notices were served upon the recorded owners as per the Record-of-Rights, Again we do not think in a case like the present one, it is for the Collector to make enquiries from the registration office to find out if the land had since been sold by the recorded owners. In Winky Bilawari v. Amritsar Improvement Trust (1996) 11 SCC 644, this Court observed that the public authorities were not expected to go on making enquiries in the Sub-Registrar's office as to who would be the owner of the 'property. The Collector in the present case was thus justified in relying on the official record being the Record of Rights as to who were the owners of the land sought to be requisitioned and prudence did not require any further enquiry to be made. We are, therefore, of the view that notices were properly served under Section 3(2) of the Act on the owners of the land. 13. It could be seen from the above order that service of notice on a person shown as owner or occupier in the record of rights is sufficient even though the said person had already sold the land prior to the said notification unless it is substantiated otherwise that the authorities concerned had the knowledge of the rights or interest of any person other than those found recorded as owner/occupier in the Revenue Records. It is further held that the Collector is not obliged to make a roving enquiry about the ownership of the land. If the name of the purchaser is not yet entered in the record of rights then non-service on such a person does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Admittedly the appellant had not got his name entered in the revenue records as owner or occupant of the said land and therefore, he could not complain, about non-service of notice on him nor about the failure to grant a hearing to him. Contention that as per provision of the Land Revenue Act, there was no obligation on his part to either inform the Revenue Authorities about the sale in his favour or to request them to transfer the katha in his

name cannot stand as it has not been brought on record with documents that in fact the appellant had made payment for making the necessary entries in the record of rights and the register in his name at the time of registration of the sale deed in his favour. This apart failure to make entries on the part of the Revenue Authorities by itself would not cast any obligation on the authorities under the Act to make a roving enquiry and try to locate an owner who may have subsequently purchased the land from the previous owner. Failure on the part of the Revenue Authority to make entry in the register of mutation in favour of the subsequent owner would not render the acquisition proceedings bad in law on account of non-issuance of notice inviting objections to the acquisition proceedings of service thereof.

ENVIRONMENT ISSUES

In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and Ors., [2004] 2 SCC 392, this Court aptly observed Stockholm Declaration as "Magna Carta of our environment". First time at the international level importance of environment has been articulated.

In the Stockholm Declaration principle number two provides that the natural resources of the earth including air, water, land, flora and fauna should be protected. The fourth principle of Stockholm Declaration reminds us about out responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wildlife and its habitat.

The Court in said judgment also observed that "this, therefore, is the aim, namely, to balance economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in the population together with consequential demands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of forests, the filling up of lakes and pollution of water resources and the very air which we breathe. However, there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other."

Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, [1996] 5 SCC 281. "While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment."

In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR (1991) SC 420, this Court has given directions that, under Article 21 of the Constitution, pollution free water and air are the fundamental rights of the people.

In the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M.V. Nayudu, [2001] 2 SCC 62, this Court observed that the right to have access to drinking water is fundamental to life and it is the duty of the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens.

Similarly, this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, [2000] 10 SCC 664, observed as under: "Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India....."

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1991] 2 SCC 137, this Court gave number of directions to reduce the pollution created by vehicles.

In a recent case of Intellectuals Forum v. State of A. P., [2006] 3 SCC 549, this Court has reiterated the importance of the Doctrine of Public Trust in maintaining sustainable development.

STATE DISCRETION AND LIMITS

In Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [1987 (2) SCC 295], it was held that as regards the question of propriety of private negotiation with an individual or corporation, it should be

borne in mind that State owned or public owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed, public interest being the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest when it is considered necessary to dispose of the property is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. But such a rule is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule. As and when a departure is made from the general rule, it must be shown that such an action was rational and not suggestive of discrimination.

To the same effect is the judgment in G.D. Zalani & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 512]. In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr. [AIR 1980 SC 1992], this Court, after referring to various judgments, including the judgment in Ramana Dayaram Shetty's case, held: "It is imperative in a democracy governed by the rule of law that governmental action must be kept within the limits of law and if there is any transgression, the Court must be ready to condemn it. It is a matter of historical experience that there is a tendency in every government to assume more and more powers and since it is not an uncommon phenomenon in some countries that the legislative check is getting diluted, it is left to the Court as the only other reviewing authority under the Constitution to be increasingly vigilant to ensure observance with the rule of law and in this task, the court must not flinch or falter. It may be pointed out that this ground of invalidity, namely, that the governmental action is unreasonable or lacking in the quality of public interest, is different from that of mala fides though it may, in a given case, furnish evidence of mala fides."

In M.P. Oil Extraction & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & others [1997 (7) SCC 592] this Court held: "Although to ensure fair play and transparency in State action, distribution of largesse by inviting open tenders or by public auction is desirable, it cannot be held that in no case distribution of such largesse by negotiation is permissible. In the instant case, as a policy decision protective measure by entering into agreements with selected industrial units for assured supply of sal trees at concessional rate has been taken by the Government. The rate of royalty has also been fixed on some accepted principle of pricing formula as will be indicated hereafter. Hence, distribution or allotment of sal seeds at the determined royalty to the respondents and other units covered by the agreements cannot be assailed. It is to be appreciated that in case, distribution by public auction or by open tender may not achieve the purpose of the policy of protective measure by way of supply of sal seeds at concessional rate of royalty to the industrial units covered by the agreements on being selected on valid and objective considerations."

Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala (1993) 3 SCC 422 It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.

In a case before Supreme Court, Bonduramaswamy VS BDA, decided on May 5, 2010. By the bench consisting of K. G. Balakrishnan, C.J., R. V. Raveendran J. D. K. Jain J

Frequent complaints and grievances in regard to the following five areas, with reference to the prevailing system of acquisitions governed by Land Acquisition Act,1894, requires the urgent attention of the state governments and development authorities:

(i) absence of proper or adequate survey and planning before embarking upon acquisition;

(ii) indiscriminate use of emergency provisions in section 17 of the LA Act;

(iii) notification of areas far larger than what is actually required, for acquisition, and then making arbitrary deletions and withdrawals from the acquisitions;

(iv) offer of very low amount as compensation by Land Acquisition Collectors, necessitating references to court in almost all cases;

(v) inordinate delay in payment of compensation; and

(vi) absence of any rehabilitatory measures.

There are several avenues for providing rehabilitation and economic security to landlosers. They can be by way of offering employment, allotment of alternative lands, providing housing or house plots, providing safe investment opportunities for the compensation amount to generate a stable income, or providing a permanent regular income by way of annuities. The nature of benefits to the landlosers can vary depending upon the nature of the acquisition. For this limited purpose, the acquisitions can be conveniently divided into three broad categories:

(i) Acquisitions for the benefit of the general public or in national interest. This will include acquisitions for roads, bridges, water supply projects, power projects, defence establishments, residential colonies for rehabilitation of victims of natural calamities.

(ii) Acquisitions for economic development and industrial growth. This will include acquisitions for Industrial Layouts/Zones, corporations owned or controlled by the State, expansion of existing industries, and setting up Special Economic Zones.

(iii) Acquisitions for planned development of urban areas. This will include acquisitions for formation of residential layouts and construction of apartment Blocks, for allotment to urban middle class and urban poor, rural poor etc.

86. In acquisitions falling under the first category, the general public are the direct beneficiaries. In the second category, the beneficiaries are industrial or business houses, though ultimately, there will be indirect benefit to the public by way of generation of employment and overall economic development. In the third category, the beneficiaries are individual members of public who, on account of allotment of plots/flats, will be able to lead a better quality of life by having a shelter with comforts, apart from the fact that the planned development of cities and towns is itself in public interest. At present, irrespective of the purpose, in all cases of acquisition, the landloser gets only monetary compensation. Acquisitions of the first kind, does not normally create any resistance or hostility. But in acquisitions of the second kind, where the beneficiaries of acquisition are industries, business houses or private sector companies and in acquisitions of the third kind where the beneficiaries are private individuals, there is a general feeling among the land-losers that their lands are taken away, to benefit other classes of people; that these amount to robbing Peter to pay Paul; that their lands are given to others for exploitation or enjoyment, while they are denied their land and their source of livelihood. When this grievance and resentment remains unaddressed, it leads to unrest and agitations. The solution is to make the land-losers also the beneficiaries of acquisition so that the land-losers do not feel alienated but welcome the acquisition.

87. It is necessary to evolve tailor-made schemes to suit particular acquisitions, so that they will be smooth, speedy, litigation free and beneficial to all concerned. Proper planning, adequate counselling, and timely mediation with different groups of land losers, should be resorted.

Where the acquisition is of the third kind, that is, for urban development (either by formation of housing colonies by Development Authorities or by making bulk allotment to colonisers, developers or housing societies), there is no scope for providing benefits like employment or a share in the equity. But the landlosers can be given a share in the development itself, by making available a reasonable portion of the developed land to the landloser so that he can either use it personally or dispose of a part and retain a part or put it to other beneficial use. We may give by way of an illustration a model scheme for large scale acquisitions for planned urban development by forming residential layouts: Out of the total acquired area, 30% of the land area can be earmarked for roads and footpaths; and 15% to 10% for parks, open spaces and civic amenities. Out of the remaining 55% to 60% area available for forming plots, the Development Authority can auction 10% area as plots, allot 15% area as plots to urban middle class and allot 15% area as plots to economically weaker sections (at cost or subsidised cost), and release the remaining 15% to 20% area in the form of plots to the land-losers whose lands have been acquired, in lieu of compensation. (The percentages mentioned above are merely illustrative and can vary from scheme to scheme depending upon the local conditions, relevant Bye- laws/Rules, value of the acquired land, the estimated cost of development etc.). Such a model makes the land-loser a stake-holder and direct beneficiary of the acquisition leading to co-operation for the urban development scheme.

In Bharat Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, Supreme Court has observed as under:- “In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a

distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter- affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.” A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; M/s Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684; and Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2221.

Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that & ;as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted." Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. (Vide: Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter-College & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1242; and Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, AIR 2011 SC 1127).

It cannot be said that the rules of procedural law do not apply in PIL. The caution is always added that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence in such proceedings when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the Court. (Vide: Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 2187)

Pleadings prepared by a layman must be construed generously as he lacks standard of accuracy and precision particularly when a legal wrong is caused to a determinate class. (Vide: A. Hamsaveni & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1994) 6 SCC 51; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280; Prabir Kumar Das v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 452; and A. Abdul Farook v. Municipal Council, Perambalur, (2009) 15 SCC 351).

The Supreme court decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State Of M.P. & Anr. Decided on 11 May, 2011 It is observed that “It is desirable for the authority concerned to ensure that as far as practicable persons who had been living and carrying on business or other activity on the land acquired, if they so desire, and are willing to purchase and comply with any requirement of the authority or the local body, be given a piece of land on terms settled with due regard to the price at which land has been acquired from them. However, the State Government cannot be compelled to provide alternate accommodation to the oustees and it is for the authority concerned to consider the desirability and feasibility of providing alternative land considering the facts and circumstances of each case. In certain cases, the oustees are entitled to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is meant only for those persons who have been rendered destitute because of a loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition.

The Supreme court decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State Of M.P. & Anr. Decided on 11 May, 2011 It is observed that The authorities must explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way of employment, housing, investment opportunities, and identification of alternative lands. "A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens." For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic. …… Mere payment of compensation to the oustees in such a case may not be enough. In case the oustee is not able to purchase the land just after getting the compensation, he may not be able to have the land at all.

In K. Krishna Reddy & Ors. v. Spl. Dy. Collector, Land Acqn. Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, AIR 1988 SC 2123, this Court expressed grave concern on the issue observing as under: “ ...After all money is what money buys. What the claimants could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps, not even half of it. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling with rising inflation.....The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation. They totally depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves nowhere. They are left high and dry. They have no savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no other work. They may even face starvation unless rehabilitated.”(Emphasis added)

Whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further with the matter. This rule has been evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by deceiving it. However, the concealed fact must be material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on the merit of the case/order. The legal maxim "Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur" means that a right cannot arise out of wrong doing, and it becomes applicable in a case like this. (Vide: The Ramjas Foundation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852; Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242; Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1236; Sabia Khan & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 271; S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 166; and Union of India & Ors. v. Shantiranjan Sarkar, (2009) 3 SCC 90).

It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the Court and obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. It adversely affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. Every party is under a legal obligation to make truthful statements before the Court, for the reason that causing an obstruction in the due course of justice & undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled stream of justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity. (Vide: Naraindas v. Government of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 1252; The Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 946; and Afzal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 397).

State Of Kerala vs P. P. Hassan Koya AIR 1968 SC 1201, “In determining compensation payable for in respect of land with building, the compensation cannot be determined by ascertaining the value of the land and the "breakup value" of the building separately. The land and the building constitute one unit, and the value of the entire unit must be determined with all its advantages and its potentialities. When the property sold is land with building, it is often difficult to secure reliable evidence of instances of sale of similar lands with buildings proximate in time to the date of the notification. Therefore the method which is generally resorted to in determining the value of the land with buildings especially those used for business purposes, is the method of capitalization of return actually received or which might reasonably be received from the land and the buildings.”

The following principles of law emerge from series of Case laws on the subject.

1. The value of smaller plots cannot be taken into account to decide value of larger plots. 2. The Court is under a duty to determine the question as to whether the application for reference

under section 18 was made in 90 days time, and if it is found that it was not made in time the Court gets no jurisdiction to adjudicate.

3. The Court had no power to condone the delay and call for reference on such an application, as the power of the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is to condone the delay in making an application before it and not to condone the delay in making the application before the Land Acquisition Officer.

4. The amendment of Section 25 in 1984 does not enable a claimant to claim before the Court as of course, a compensation higher than what was claimed by him before the Land Acquisition Officer. There should be plea of ignorance and plea with justifiable evidence to consider compensation more than what is claimed.

5. Every claimant is entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation in case some other claimant establishes the case.

6. State was bound to pay to the claimants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired. It was also pointed out that the State Government must do, "what is fair and just to The Citizen" and should not, as far as possible, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen.

7. A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court.

8. The Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a Judgment of the Trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court.

9. The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.

10. The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.

11. The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).

12. In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land). Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.

13. Plus factors Minus factors, (1) smallness of size, - largeness of area, (2) proximity to a road, situation in the interior, at a distances from the Road, (3) frontage on a road. . narrow strip of land with very small frontage, compared to death. (4) nearness to developed area. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. (5). regular shape, remoteness from developed locality. (6). level vis-a-vis land, some special under acquistion. Disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. (7). special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.

14. The resultant position emerging from the amended Section 25 after Supreme courts decision in chimanlal case, is that even without any such claim the Court can award compensation in excess of what has been awarded by the Collector, which position was not available prior to 1984 since there was a limitation also on the power of the Court in the preamended Section that the Court would not award compensation beyond that claimed by a person interested.

15. Section 23(2) enjoins to award, in addition to the market value, 30% solatium in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. Equally, Parliament having taken notice of the inordinate delay in making the award by the Land Acquisition Officer from the date of notification published under Section 4(1) till passing the award under Section 11, to offset the price pegged during the interregnum, Section 23(1-A) was introduced to award an amount calculated @ 12% per annum on such market value, in addition to the market value of the land, for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of Section 4(1) notification to the date of award of the Collector or date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. Under Section 28, interest was directed to be paid on the excess compensation at the rate specified therein from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of deposit into court of such excess compensation. These three components are in addition to the compensation determined under sub-section (1) of Section 23.

16. It is now a well-established principle of law that the land abutting the national highway will fetch far more higher price than the land lying interior

17. It is also well-settled that for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands, the comparable sales method i.e. the lands sought to be compared must be similar in potentiality and nature may be adopted.

18. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired.

19. The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value.

20. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.

21. Positive factors Negative factors

(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area

(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road

(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth

(iv) nearness to developed area (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up

(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality

(vi) level vis-‘-vis land under acquisition (vi) some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser

(vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage

LAND ONCE ACQUIRED CAN BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE

Appeal against High Court's order directing the State of Tamil Nadu, its officers and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to re-convey the suit property - Suit property acquired by government left idle for 21 years - Held, once a piece of land has been duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State, it is doubtful whether the Government can withdraw from the acquisition, since the case of the State and the Housing Board is that possession has been taken and plans finalised to fulfill the purpose for which the acquisition was made, further there is no plea in the writ petition that a request for re- conveyance was made in terms of Section 48B of the Act as amended in the State of Tamil Nadu - Appeal allowed.... Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) D.D : 15/3/2007

AWARD SHALL BE MADE WITHIN 2 YEARS AFTER 6(1) NOTIFICATION OR ELSE FATAL.

Appeal against the High Court's dismissal of writ petition filed to quash the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer made after a period of 2 years from the date of publication of the declaration - Held, in view of Section 11A an award has to be made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6, failure to adhere to this time frame is fatal to the award, as the provision is mandatory - Appeal allowed.... Mohan and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) D.D : 13/3/2007

COMPENSATION FOR DEVELOPED LAND

Appellant's land sought to be acquired for expansion of New Government Electric Factory, Bangalore - After a preliminary notification under s. 4, claimant demanded an amount of Rs.20.00 per square yard for the land - Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.8, 000 per acre - Since matter was before the Supreme Court, the High Court, thought it proper to set aside the order passed by the Reference Court and to remand the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Reference Court once again considered the matter on merits. By that time, the matter had already been decided by the Supreme Court - The Reference Court, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court, held that the claimant was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.18, 000 per acre, and the order was confirmed by the High Court - Held, it cannot be overlooked that while dealing with the matter and considering the claim of the claimant, the Reference Court considered the situation and location of the land - In view of the location of land being situated on National Highway of Bangalore-Madras, near Railway line and situated in

Industrial Area, the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.20 per square yard as claimed by her.... Sharadamma v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) D.D : 9/2/2007

QUASHING OF PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION - MAINTAINABILITY

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - High Court quashed notification issued under s. 28(1) - Appeals against - Held, High Court entertained the petition and quashed the preliminary notification overruling well-founded objection as to maintainability of petition raised by the State and the appellants - High Court was not right in quashing the notification issued under the Act, particularly, when it was a preliminary notification reflecting the intention of the State to acquire land for public purpose, i.e. for the purpose of developing industry - Appeals allowed.... H.M.T. Limited and Another v. Mudappa and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) D.D : 8/2/2007

COMPENSATION ON YIELD BASIS

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.22, 000/- per acre as against Rs.6, 000/- awarded by the Subordinate Judge - Appeal against - Held, High Court also considered an important fact that the claimants-respondents would be entitled to much more amount of Rs. 25, 000/- per acre on yield-basis but has fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs 22, 000/- per acre - It cannot be said that by not deducting the amount of expenses for cultivation, the High Court had committed any illegality - Appeal dismissed.... Land Acquisition Officer, Andhra Pradesh v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) D.D : 7/2/2007

MALAFIDE NOTIFICATION

High Court held that the appellant- society is a bogus house building society - Plea of in-ordinate delay in filing petition, by appellant - Held, when the acquisition has been found to be totally mala fide and not for bona fide purpose, the ground of delay and acquiescence in the present case has no substance - When the basic notification under which the present land is sought to be acquired stood vitiated then whatever money that the appellant has paid, is at its own risk - Once the notification goes no benefit could be derived by the appellant - Issue of notification was mala fide and it was not for public purpose - Appeals dismissed.... Vyalikaval House Building Co-Op.Society v. V. Chandrappa and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) D.D : 2/2/2007

VALUATION OF LAND ALLOTED

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Challenge to allotment made on the ground that allotment and disposal in violation of the existing regulations in Navi Mumbai - High Court quashed the allotments made to the six housing societies - Held, State Government is directed to cause a fresh valuation of all the plots in question as on the date on which the allotments were made, with notice to the petitioner and the respondent-co-operative societies through an independent government valuer - Once such valuation is effected and payment, if any, is made, the injunction shall stand revoked and the respondent co-operative societies will be entitled to continue with the construction work - Set aside the directions given by the Bombay High Court in its impugned judgment - Appeals disposed of.... (1) Amey Co-Op.Housing Society Limited ; (2) Vijay Associates (Wadhwa) Developers v. Public Concern For Governance Trust and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) D.D : 1/2/2007

NUISANCE TO CITIZENS

High Court directed that the milk dairies located in the city of Jodhpur be shifted from their present location to alternative sites - Appeal against - Held, High Court rightly opined that it is the dire need of the city of Jodhpur to relocate the milk dairies which were creating nuisance for the citizens of the city of Jodhpur - Not find any illegality in the directions of High Court particularly when High Court did not give any directions - No interference is called for - Directions issued.... (1) Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti; (2) Shri Ghanchi Mahasabha, Jodhpur v. (1) State of Rajasthan and Others; (2) Rajasthan Chapter of Indian Association of Lawyers and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) D.D : 17/1/2007

Rakesh Kumar Jain and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 5/1/2007 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Claim of interest on delayed compensation - Though the Agra Development Authority (respondent No.2) had agreed to deposit the money within two months, they had not done so - Appellants have wrongly deprived of the beneficial use of their money - Therefore, they are entitled to interest - Appeal disposed of....

(1) Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation; (2) Rishabh Ispat Limited; (3) Bikhu Ram Jain and Others; (4) Sharda Jain v. (1) Rishabh Ispat Limited and Others; (2) Pitalu and Others; (3) State of Uttar Pradesh; (4) Tikkam Singh and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 15/12/2006 Land Acquisition Act - Dispute regarding compensation - Held, no evidence was brought on record to establish that the compensation was accepted by the claimants without protest - High Court was justified in holding that there was no material to substantiate the contention that the compensation had been accepted without protest by the claimants - Appeals dismissed....

Patel Joitaram Kalidas and Others v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 13/12/2006 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 4 - Plea that High Court ought to have awarded interest on solatium payable under s. 23 (2) - Whether appellants are entitled to maintain an application for special leave before this Court impugning the judgment and order of the High Court which affirmed the findings of the Reference Court under s. 18? - Held, not necessary for the appellant- claimant to have filed separate appeal/cross-objections before the High Court for the purposes of claiming interest - Appellants are entitled to interest on the amounts payable to them under s. 23 (1A) and s. 23 (2) - Appeals allowed....

P.K. Sreekantan and Others v. P. Sreekumaran Nair and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 4/12/2006 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Reference - Whether reference court can deal with the question covered by s. 30 of the Act in a reference made under s. 18? - Held, High Court's view that it was impermissible to deal with the matter covered under s. 30 while dealing with a reference in terms of s. 18 is irreversible - Appeal dismissed....

Daulat Singh Surana and Others v. First Land Acquisition Collector and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 13/11/2006 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Appellant aggrieved by the Notification under s. 4 and declaration under s. 6 - Held, power of compulsory acquisition as described by the term 'eminent domain' can be exercised only in the interest and for the welfare of the people - Concept of public purpose should include the matters, such as, safety, security, health, welfare and prosperity of the community or public at large - State of West Bengal has been using the premises in question for more than six decades for the safety and security of the people by having an office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police - It cannot be said that the premises was not required by the State Government for the interest and welfare of the people or there was no public purpose involved in acquiring the premises in question - No reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the Division Bench - Appeal dismissed....

Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 1/11/2006 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Held, appellant cannot be said to have any right title and interest in the property - A disputant is entitled to an interim order, provided he is a party thereto - If for one reason or the other, he cannot be impleaded as a party to the proceeding, the Court would have no jurisdiction to pass any interim order in his favour - If the impleadment application was not maintainable, it was, required to be dismissed in limine - It could not have been entertained only for pressing an interim order - Appeal dismissed....

Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 19/10/2006 What is the rule of appropriation in execution of money decrees? Is the rule the same in the case of an award decree under the Land Acquisition Act or, is there anything in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, Act 68 of 1984 making that rule inapplicable or not wholly applicable? - Held, essential ratio in the Prem Nath Kapur on appropriation being at different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention - Order accordingly....

Mahesh Lall Seal and Others v. Union of India and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 1/9/2006 Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - Whether impugned Award of Arbitrator dated 25.10.2000 was null and void on account of absence of referable dispute to the Arbitrator? - Held, there is a difference between the validity of the notification issued under s. 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act on one hand and the validity of the Award on merits announced by the Arbitrator on 25.10.2000 on the other - It is not open to Union of India now to say that Rs.70, 000/- per kattah was not the fair rate - Appeal partly allowed....

Ganpatibai and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 23/8/2006 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Challenging notification issued under s. 4 and declaration under s. 6 and subsequent award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer - Writ petition dismissed on the ground of delay and also on the ground that the award had already been passed -

Appeal against - Held, suit filed was held to be not maintainable by Civil Judge and after that this writ petition - Appellant continued to prosecute the suit till 2001, when the decision of this Court in 1995 had held that suit was not maintainable - Single Judge and Division Bench were justified in holding that the writ petition was highly belated - Appeal dismissed....

P. Narayanappa and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 18/8/2006 Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 - Impugned notifications were issued for acquisition of land for establishment and development of industries - Held, scheme of the Act does not show that at the time of acquisition of the land and issuing a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the complete details of the nature of the industry or infrastructural facility proposed to be set up should also be mentioned - What is to be seen is whether the land is acquired for development by the Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act, as mentioned in s. 28(1) - It cannot be held that the impugned notifications are vague or cryptic or that they suffer from any infirmity - Appeals dismissed....

State of Punjab v. Harchal Singh (Dead) Through Lrs (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 23/5/2006 Land Acquisition Act - Acquisition for public purpose - Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.85, 000/- per acre for Chahi land - High Court awarded the compensation at Rs.1, 75, 000/- per acre - Appeal against - Held, High Court was of the view that on the ground of high potentiality of the acquired land, the compensation now awarded could not be said to be on the higher side - Reasons given by High Court is cogent and convincing - Appeals dismissed....

Om Prakash and Others v. Dil Bahar and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 19/5/2006 Land Acquisition Act, s. 18 - Enhancement of compensation - Held, both the parties agreed to share the compensation at the rate of 65% for the respondents 1, 2 & 3 and 35% for the appellants and respondent no.5 - Appeal disposed of....

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 24/4/2006 Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - A decision was taken by NOIDA that land equivalent to 40% of the land holding of such societies would be made available for allotment to the members of the societies whose land was acquired - Complaints from various persons who alleged that they were in fact members of respondent-society, but their names were not forwarded by the Society for allotment of plots - Nothing placed by respondent-Society to substantiate the genuine membership - Cancellation of allotments - Writ petition against allowed - Appeal against - Held, High Court entertained writ petition on the ground that the present appellant by acting wholly arbitrarily and illegally had discrimination against the writ petitioner - Conclusions were based on no material - Respondent-Society was not entitled to maintain a writ petition - Appeal allowed....

A.P. Nayar and Others v. Reha. Ministry Emp. Coop. House Bldg. Soc. Limited and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 24/4/2006 Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951; Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 - Appellants predecessor purchased the land by means of a registered sale deed - Claim that appellants were entitled to have the right and possession - Defence that land in question stood vested in Government in the year 1949 itself much before the alleged sale deed - High Court held that appellants had only a right to receive compensation for the acquisition - Appeal against - Held, High Court is right in holding that the land in question was acquired under the Acquisition Act and it had vested in the Authority under that Act - Appeal dismissed....

State of Karnataka and Another v. All India Manufacturers Organization and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 20/4/2006 Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project - Framework Agreement challenged and dismissed by High Court - High Court of Karnataka directed State of Karnataka to continue to implement the project - Acquisition of land for this purpose - Plea of excess land acquired by state - Dismissed by High Court - Appeals against - Whether the doctrine of res judicata, as a matter of principle, can be applied to Public Interest Litigations?; Whether issues and findings in Somashekar Reddy (supra) constitute res judicata for the present litigation? - Held, acquisitions were, in any way, not liable to be interfered with by the High Court - Project is intended to represent the larger public interest of the State and that is why it was entered into and implemented all along - Considering frivolous arguments and mala fides with which State of Karnataka and its instrumentalities have conducted this litigation before the High Court and us, it shall pay Nandi costs quantified at Rupees Five Lakhs - Appeals dismissed....

Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited v. C. Govinda Padayachi and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 3/4/2006 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Disputes relates to compensation - Held, amount of compensation payable, which included solatium and interest, was quantified and crystallized by the order of 7th December, 1999 - Respondent not entitled to interest on

amount of compensation, but only entitled to interest on delayed payment of quantified amount - Respondent entitled to balance of Rs. 21, 562 with interest @ 15% - Appeal allowed....

Rishi Pal Singh and Others v. Meerut Development Authority and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 24/2/2006 Land Acquisition Act - Reference Court determined rate of compensation as Rs.126/- per square yard besides statutory benefits - High Court remanded matter to Reference Court for fresh determination of the market value of the land - Appeals against - Held, nothing wrong in the Reference Court ignoring the exemplars said to have been filed by the acquiring authority - High Court judgment was passed in a mechanical manner without properly appreciating the judgment of the Reference Court - High Court ought to have examined impugned judgment and material on record before setting it aside - Remanded matter to High Court - Appeals disposed of....

(1) Bailamma @ Doddabailamma (Dead) and Others; (2) M. Kondandaraju and Others; (3) Smt. Muthamma Etc v. (1) Poornaprajna House Building Co-Operative Society and Others; (2) State of Karnataka and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 31/1/2006 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 11 - Award by collector - Plea that after the award was approved by the Government the Collector should have signed the award and thereafter communicated his award to the parties and in the eye of law no award was made by the Collector - Held, award which has already been signed by the Collector becomes an award as soon as it is approved by the Government without any alteration - There was no necessity for Collector to sign the award again, nor does s. 11 require that for the purpose of pronouncing award notice should be given by Collector to persons interested - Appeals dismissed....

Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 23/11/2005 National Highways Act, 1956 - Compulsory acquisition of certain lands belonging to writ petitioners by Central Government - High Court by its impugned judgment hold that Notification regarding compulsory acquisition of land to be bad in law but in view the fact that possession of the acquired land had already been taken by authorities ordered that an additional amount of compensation be awarded to the land owners - Held, least that is required in such cases is that acquisition notification should let the person whose land is sought to be acquired know what he is going to lose - Notification shows that there is no mention of any Plan - Description of land under acquisition in the impugned Notification fails to meet legal requirement of a brief description of land which renders the Notification invalid - Taking of possession of lands is in total violation of statutory provisions - Construction of national highway on the acquired land has already been completed - Directed to determine the compensation as per market price of land on the date of issuance of the notification - Appeals disposed of....

Pattammal and Others v. Union of India and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 8/11/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land Acquisition Collector classified acquired lands as 'Wet' lands and fixed market value - Reference Court classified lands as having potential value as house sites and increased value - High Court reduced the market value - Appeal against - Held, Reference Court adopted correct procedure upon examination of location and potential value of acquired lands in its detailed award, as also contemporaneous sale deeds which indicated that there had been a steep escalation of the price of lands in the immediate vicinity of the acquired lands - No justification for Madras High Court to have reduced market value of acquired lands - Appeals allowed....

Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 26/10/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition of land for extension of the Cantonment at Amritsar - Awards passed by Reference Court modified to the extent that claimants of the five villages would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/-, per acre irrespective of the nature of the land and would also be entitled to statutory interest and solatium at the rate of 30 per cent - Appeal against - Plea that High Court erred in abandoning belting system and taking recourse to a uniform rate for all the lands comprised in the five different villages on account of the fact that all the lands were not similar in nature and did not enjoy the same privileges - Held, entire area is in a stage of development and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre - Appeals dismissed....

State of Karnataka v. Laxuman (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 25/10/2005 All these appeals involve questions connected with the scope and effect of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended and adopted in the State of Karnataka. The brief facts leading to the appeals are as under: Civil Appeal No. 2024 ...

Bangalore Development Authority & Others v. R. Hanumaiah & Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 3/10/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Bangalore development Authority Act,1976 as amendment by Bangalore development authorties (amendment) Act,1993 - S38-crw/s9- power of Bangalore development authority to favour of owner - Property could only be recommended in favour of owner only in the event possession thereof had not been taken - once possession is taken, State cannot direct reconveyance of property notification for acquisition of land of respondent for formation of a scheme to set up a layout - award made ,compensation paid and possessior of land was taken - resolution passed by Bangalore board For reconveniance of extend of 8 acares and 21 guntas of land out of total land acquired - However resolution passed by authority to reconvey to acres and 20 guntas of land was not given effect to - Writ petitioner- Since no provision in act or rulesenabling Authority to reconvey land - Hence no direction could be issued to Bangalore development authority for recoveyance of land - principle of promissory estoppels held not applicable...

Bangalore Development Authority and others v. R. Hanumaiah and others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 3/10/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Bangalore development Authority Act, 1976 as amendment by Bangalore development authorties (amendment) Act,1993 - S38-crw/s9- power of Bangalore development authority to favour of owner - Property could only be recommended in favour of owner only in the event possession thereof had not been taken - once possession is taken, State cannot direct reconveyance of property notification for acquisition of land of respondent for formation of a scheme to set up a layout - award made ,compensation paid and possessior of land was taken - resolution passed by Bangalore board For reconveniance of extend of 8 acares and 21 guntas of land out of total land acquired - However resolution passed by authority to reconvey to acres and 20 guntas of land was not given effect to - Writ petitioner- Since no provision in act or rules enabling Authority to reconvey land - Hence no direction could be issued to Bangalore development authority for recoveyance of land - principle of promissory estoppels held not applicable....

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 20/9/2005 Land Acquisition Act - Held, assignment of reasons is part of principles of natural justice, necessity thereof may be taken away by a statute either expressly or by necessary implication - When a decision is required to be taken after giving an opportunity of hearing to a person who may suffer civil or evil consequences by reason thereof, the same would mean an effective hearing - Due application of mind on the part of the statutory authority was imperative - Appeal dismissed....

Ranvir Singh and Another v. Union of India (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 7/9/2005 Land Acquisition Act - Compensation - Enhanced by High Court - Appeal against - Held, High Court was required to consider the deeds of sale in their proper perspective for determining the market values of the acquired land - Market value of fully developed land cannot be compared with wholly underdeveloped land although they may be adjoining or situated at a little distance - For determining the market value, it is trite, the nature of the land plays an important role - Matters remitted to High Court for consideration of the matter afresh....

Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (D) by Lrs. and others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 7/9/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Compensation - Enhancement of compensation by reference court and also granted compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per bigha for minor mineral - High Court dismissed appeals filed against the enhancement - Appeal against - Principle of res judicata - Held, Reference Court and the High Court unfortunately did not consider the question as to what amount was required to be expended for bringing the said area back to the normal so as to enable the University authorities to raise construction thereon - Impugned judgments are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration - Appeals disposed of....

Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 6/9/2005 Land Acquisition Act, s. 18 - Whether application for reference filed by appellant under s. 18 was barred by time? - Held, appellant admitted knowledge of fact that an award has been declared but asserted that a copy of the award had not been officially served upon the appellant - It is not necessary that notice should contain all details of the award - Application filed beyond prescribed period - Appeal dismissed....

Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat Through Deputy Collector Modasa and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 6/9/2005 Land Acquisition Act - Application for making a reference under s. 18 - High Court held that application barred by time - Appeal against - Appellants knew of date of declaration of the award when compensation was paid to them - Held, High Court not rejected plea of appellants that they came to know of the award only when compensation was being paid to them in July, 1988 - Admittedly no notice under s. 12(2) - Reference is within the time....

Mandir Shree Sitaramji Alias Shree Sitaram Bhandar v. Land Acquisition Collector and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 24/8/2005 Land Acquisition Act - Challenge to proposed acquisition - Held, possession of land had already been taken - Scheme would not take away rights of Delhi Development Authority to acquire for development of Delhi - Scheme was not applicable to lands of Appellants - Once possession is taken Government cannot withdraw from acquisition - Appeal dismissed....

Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Kollutla Obi Reddy and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 10/8/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 - Division Bench of High Court set aside orders/awards and directing Land Acquisition Officer to pass fresh awards - Appeal against - Maintainability of writ petition filed after long passage of time - Held, High Court was moved in these matters by writ petitions long after s. 4(1) Notification and s. 6 declarations - References in terms of s. 18 were pending - High Court not even indicated any reason as to why writ petitions were being entertained when references were pending - Set aside judgment of High Court....

G.M. O.N.G.C. Limited v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 8/8/2005 Land Acquisition Act - Amount of compensation - Enhancement of compensation solely on basis of testimony of witnesses and ignoring the deeds of sale - Appeal against - Held, in determining amount of compensation, Reference Court as also High Court was bound to take into consideration the well-settled principles of law and the factors enumerated in s. 23 - Committed a serious error in passing judgment solely relying on or on basis of testimony of a witness ignoring deeds of sale - Refund not allowed - Appeals dismissed....

R.P. Singh v. Union of India and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 4/8/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Claim of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20, 000/- per bigha - Ground that respondents are selling land at the rate of Rs.25 lacs per bigha - Whether appellants entitled to the compensation claimed? - Held, claimant would be entitled to market value of land as on date of publication of notification and not as it prevails at a later date after land has been fully developed - Appellants entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 7, 000/- per bigha - Appeals disposed of....

Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector and another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 2/8/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Principle of Res judicata - Direction of High Court was acted upon - Appeal confined to quantum of compensation - Held, principle of res judicata, would apply in different proceedings arising out of same course of action but would also apply in different stages of the same proceedings - Land Acquisition Officer took into consideration the direction and awarded 12% additional compensation at market value - Subsequent judgment of High Court not sustainable....

Bijay Kumar Saraogi v. State of Jharkhand (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 26/4/2005 Land Acquisition Act - Amendment Act - Application claiming that he was entitled to benefit conferred by ss. 23(2) and 28 of Act as amended - Held, s. 152 C.P.C. can be invoked for limited purposes of correcting clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in judgment - Section cannot be invoked for claiming a substantive relief which was not granted under the decree, or as a pretext to get the order which has attained finality reviewed - Appeal dismissed....

Zoroastrian Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Another v. District Registrar Co-Operative Societies (Urban) and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 15/4/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Applied for acquisition of certain lands for purpose of erecting houses - Held, uphold right of Society to insist that property has to be dealt by respondent No.2 only in terms of bye- laws of Society and assigned either wholly or in parts only to persons qualified to be members of Society in terms of its bye-laws - Respondent No.3 is restrained from entering property or putting up any construction therein on basis of any transfer by respondent No. 2 in disregard of bye-laws of Society and without prior consent of Society - Appeal allowed....

Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By Lrs v. State of Gujarat (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 13/4/2005 Land Acquisition Act - Disputes relates to compensation - Held, having regard to entire facts and circumstances of the case that interest of justice would be subserved if compensation is determined at the rate of Rs. 160/- per square meter for large plots and Rs. 175/- per square meter for small plots - Claimants would be entitled to interest on solatium as the said question is no longer res integra - Appeals disposed of....

Indore Development Authority v. Srikrishna Oil Mills and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 12/4/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act,

1960 - Preparation and finalization of scheme under the Adhiniyam - Whether scheme No. 78 prepared and approved by Indore Development Authority is in accordance with law?; Whether procedure under Adhiniyam was followed by authorities? - Held, notices were issued, objections were submitted and hearing was afforded to affected persons and thereafter decision was taken - Those actions also cannot be termed illegal - Scheme No. 78 was legal or lawful - Appeals allowed....

Girdhari and Others etc. etc. v. Union of India and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 7/4/2005 Requisition & Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 - Agreement to pay compensation Rs.7,000/- per bigha - Whether solatium and interest awarded by Arbitrator sustainable? - Held, in the facts and circumstances of case interest at rate of 9% on the compensation amount be allowed to appellants - Appeal disposed of....

State of Karnataka and Another v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 30/3/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Claiming of enhanced compensation - Held, respondents having accepted award without any demur were estopped and precluded from maintaining an application for reference in terms of s. 18 of Act - Condition precedent for maintaining application for reference under s. 18 is non-acceptance of award by awardee - Single Judge was right in concluding that writ petitions were not maintainable....

Swasthya Raksha Samiti Rati Chowk v. Chaudhary Ram Harakh Chand (D) By Lrs. and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 22/2/2005 Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963 - Nature of enquiry to be conducted under r. 4(2)(iii) - Matter referred to a larger Bench....

Sanjay Gera v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 22/2/2005 Allotment - Demand of extra amount of Rs. 38, 400/- by respondent - Whether respondent can make enhancement of price? - Held, in order to justify enhancement of price as per condition No.9 of allotment letter, defendants had to lead proper evidence to substantiate allegation that enhancement was effected on account of increase in price of acquisition of land - There is no such evidence produced by defendants - Total misreading of evidence by Additional District Judge as well as by Single Judge of High Court - Appeal allowed....

U.P. Parents Association and others v. S.K. Bhargava and others etc. etc. (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 22/2/2005 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition quashed by High Court - Appeal against order of High Court - held, respondents concede acquisition in respect of acquired land, except land measuring about 6000 sq.ft. which has been released in exercise of power under s, 48(1) may be upheld - Appeals partly allowed....

Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and Another v. Dila Ram and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 5/1/2005 Land Acquisition Act - Scheme for resettlement and rehabilitation - Whether respondents entitled to benefits under resettlement and rehabilitation plan? - Held, scheme emphasizes joint holding and family relationship - As long as these existed, fact that any particular person was residing separately, is of no consequence - A person having been first to apply, was given benefit under scheme - There was no further obligation on part of corporation to provide any more benefits there under - Appeal allowed....

Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary v. S.T. Pompanna Setty (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 17/12/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Compensation - Compensation enhanced by Reference Court and confirmed by High Court - Whether by not deducting amount of expenses for cultivation, courts below had committed any illegality? Whether multiplier of 15 is proper where compensation is awarded on yield basis? - Held, High Court considered an important fact that claimant would be entitled to much more amount on yield-basis but as he had claimed an amount of Rs. five lacs, nothing more could be paid to him - It, therefore, cannot be said that by not deducting amount of expenses for cultivation, courts below had committed any illegality - Where compensation is awarded on yield basis, multiplier of 10 is considered proper and appropriate - Multiplier of 15 has been applied which is on a higher side - Appeal is allowed by reducing amount of compensation to Rs. 4,75,000/-....

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Manohar (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 15/12/2004 Land Acquisition - Dispossession from land - Compensation not given - High Court awarded compensation - Appeal against award of compensation - Held, This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of respondent's property by appellants who are State authorities - This case was an eminently fit one for exercising writ jurisdiction of High Court under art. 226 of Constitution - State should be gracious enough to accept its mistake and promptly pay compensation to respondent, State has taken an intractable attitude and persisted in opposing what appears to be a just and reasonable claim of respondent - Appeal dismissed....

Messrs Anand Buttons Limited v. State of Haryana and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 10/12/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition proceedings - Whether decision of State Government, not to grant exemption from acquisition to their lands, was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of art. 14 of Constitution? - Held, if after considering all circumstances, State Government has taken the view that exemption of lands of appellants would render askew the development scheme of industrial estate, it is not possible for the High Court or this Court to interfere with satisfaction of concerned authorities - No fault found with judgment rendered by Division Bench....

Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs v. Collector Land Acquisition, Tehsil and District Doda (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 10/12/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Compensation for acquired land trees standing on acquired land - For enhancement of compensation - Whether market value fixed is correct? - Held, land was situated across river on Thethri on right side - High Court was justified in taking this as reasonable comparable instance of sale and fixing market value of acquired land based thereupon - Reference Court ought to have adjudicated claim of appellant for higher compensation in respect of trees - Appellant is entitled to have his claim in respect of trees on land acquired - Reference remitted to District Judge for purpose of adjudicating claim for higher compensation in respect of trees - Appeal partly allowed....

Fulchand Bhagwandas Gugale and another v. State of Maharashtra and others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 25/11/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Whether Additional Commissioner has power of appeal as he has purported to exercise against order passed by Sub Divisional Officer canceling the s. 4 Notification? - Held, no power in the Commissioner under s. 6 or any other provision of the Act to make a declaration contemplated by s. 6 of the Act, unless order canceling notification issued under s. 4(1) was set aside by a procedure known to law - What the Commissioner done is wholly impermissible under provisions of Act - Set aside order of Additional Commissioner....

Jaya Chandra Mohapatra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Rayagada (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 22/11/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land acquired - Quantum of compensation - Execution proceedings - Objections - Whether Civil Court had jurisdiction to pass an order amending decree as regard grant of benefits under ss. 23(A), 23(2) and 28?; whether Execution Court can go into this question? - Held, a decree passed by a competent court of law can be suitably amended - Executing Court keeping in view its limited jurisdiction could not have gone into question as to whether Reference Court was correct in passing the order amending decree or not - Executing Court directed to proceed in terms of amended decree....

M/s. Ahad Brothers v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 19/11/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Whether High Court right in going into question of title over property acquired by State and in recording a finding that appellant had only leasehold interest in the said land?; whether High Court was right in interfering with market value of land determined by Reference Court? - Held, the court exercising jurisdiction under s. 18 could not decide question of title of State over acquired land, followed, Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 128] - Reference Court right in determining market value of land acquired @Rs.2/- per sq. ft. but it committed an error in not giving any deduction towards developmental charges - Directed to deduct 30% towards development charges out of amount of compensation....

Messrs Ahad Brothers v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 19/11/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition proceedings - Whether High Court was right in going into question of title over property acquired by State and in recording a finding that appellant had only leasehold interest in land?; whether High Court right in interfering with market value of land determined by Reference Court? - Held, High Court committed an error in taking a view that question of title could be decided in proceedings arising under s. 18 - Finding that appellant had only leasehold interest in land cannot be sustained - Judgment is modified awarding compensation to appellant as owner of land acquired @ Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. after deducting 30% of market value of land calculated on basis of Rs. 2/- per sq. ft....

Government of Andra Pradesh and Another v. Syed Akbar (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 19/11/2004 Land Acquisition Act - Whether direction could be given to appellants to re-assign unused land to respondent, duly acquired by authorities and acquisition proceedings become final?; whether Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and s. 54-A can be applied for reassignment of unused land in favour of respondent? - Held, when land is acquired under Land Acquisition Act which is vested in State Government free from all encumbrances, question of reconveying land as claimed by respondent could not be accepted - Appeal allowed....

Second Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another v. Rukhiben and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 14/10/2004 The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer is in

appeal before us, aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein the market value of the lands acquired was determined at the rate of rupees ninety per square metre as against ...

M/s. Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 14/10/2004 Land Acquisition Act - Whether all provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 can be read into provisions under Chapter VII of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for an acquisition there under? - Held, no good reason as to why provisions introduced in Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984 should be not read into an acquisition under Chapter VII of M.R.T.P. Act, to extent not precluded by M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 - s. 11A being one such section, it may have to be applied to acquisition under Chapter VII of M.R.T.P. Act - Decision in Sant Joginder Singh (supra) requires reconsideration by a lager Bench....

Cement Corporation of India Limited. etc. etc. v. Purya and others etc. etc. (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 7/10/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 51A - Scope of s. 51A - Certified copy of sale deed - Whether s. 51A permits contents of certified copy of sale deed in evidence unless it is duly proved and witnessed? - Held, for bringing a documentary evidence on record, same must not only be admissible but contents thereof must be proved in accordance with law - But when statute enables a court to accept a sale deed on records evidencing a transaction, nothing further is required to be done - Admissibility of a certified copy of sale deed by itself could not be held to be inadmissible as thereby a secondary evidence has been brought on record without proving absence of primary evidence....

Des Raj (Deceased) Through L.Rs. and Others v. Union of India and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 1/10/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 28-A - Land acquired - Compensation - Enhanced compensation - Whether appellants entitled to enhanced compensation?; Whether benefit of s. 28-A available to appellants? - Held, benefit of s. 28-A is available only to parties who had not sought reference under s. 18 of Act for enhancement of compensation - This provision is not available to persons who seek for reference under s. 18 of Act for enhancement of compensation and do not challenge judgment of reference court or judgment of High Court thereafter....

Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Indian Standard Metal Company Limited (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 30/9/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition of land - Compensation - Enhanced compensation - Whether High Court right in allowing enhanced compensation to respondents? - Held, a relevant and germane consideration has not been taken into account by High Court in deciding appeal and enhancing amount of compensation - High Court ought not to have given undue importance to sale instances - High Court failed to consider documentary evidence as also fact of non-production of sale deeds by the Company and also evidence of two witnesses for the claimants in its proper perspective - Set aside decision of High Court and remit matter to High Court....

Sub Collector (L.A.O.) Tenali v. Manepalli N. Rao Etc (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 22/9/2004 Land Acquisition Act - Acquisition of land - Compensation - Whether fixing of compensation at rate of Rs. 50, 000/- per acre correct in view of a High Court Judgment that fixed market value of one of lands acquired under same Notification at rate of Rs. 20, 000/- per acre? - Held, lands were acquired pursuant to same Notification for same purpose - High Court not given reasons on what basis market value of land fixed at rate of Rs. 50, 000/- per acre - Compensation fixed at the rate of Rs. 20, 000 per acre....

Nagarathina Reddy and Others v. Special Tehsildar (La) Tamil Nadu (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 21/9/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 4(1) - Compensation - High Court drastically reduced compensation ie, 20% of total land, as required for formation of roads, etc. and again deduct 33 1/3% towards developmental charges - Whether High Court can reduce compensation like this? - Held, High Court not right in deducting twenty percent of total land acquired on ground that it was required for purpose of formation of road, etc. and again deducting 33 1/3rd percent towards developmental charges - Deduction of 30% towards developmental charges overall would suffice....

Union of India and Others v. Mukesh Hans (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 17/9/2004 Leave granted. In these appeals, a short but an important question of law arises for our consideration as to the interpretation of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) and the procedure to be followed ...

B.E.M.L. Employees House Building Co-Operative Society Limited v. State of Karnataka and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 10/9/2004

Land Acquisition - state government accepting the report of the special land acquisition officer - deciding to proceed with acquisition proceedings against fifth respondent's land but dropping proceedings against

similar situate others - neither the appellant, nor the State Government able to show us any rational distinction between the case of the fifth Respondent and the cases of the other land owners whose lands were excluded from the acquisition - vice of hostile discrimination - no material placed on record to show as to what really moved the Revenue Secretary or the State Government to overrule the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer only with respect to the land of the fifth Respondent - once it is held that the action was discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, then the High Court was justified in quashing the whole proceedings, including the notification under Section 4(1), as prayed for by the fifth Respondent appeal dismissed....

Brahma Deo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 2/9/2004 Land Acquisition - High Court was not justified in modifying the Award of the Reference Court on a technical ground that the judgment in earlier case was not evidence in the case for the reason that its certified copy had not been filed before the Court - appeal allowed....

Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation v. Shakti Bhatta Udyog and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 19/8/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Market value of land - High Court enhancing amount of compensation - Validity - Held, market value of lands fixed by High Court at rate of Rs.9/- per square yard in is either unreasonable or arbitrary having regard to location and other factors as stated in the judgment of High Court - Market value fixed by High Court confirmed....

Om Prakash (D) By Lrs. and Others v. Union of India and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 5/8/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Compensation - Increased potentiality of lands - Assessment of market value of acquired lands as on date of notification - Held, High Court justified in assessing market value at a higher rate on account of some increased potentiality of lands....

Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma and others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 3/8/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Compensation - High Court enhanced rate of compensation - Karan Singh and others vs. Union of India (1997) 8 SCC 186, covering lands acquired under very same Notification - Case almost identical - Held, it is not possible to take a different view as regards market value of lands covered by same Notification - Judgments modified by reducing amount of compensation from Rs. 345/- per sq. yard (amounting to Rs. 3,45,000/- per bigha) to Rs. 76,550/- per bigha...

Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Dharmaraddi Venkatearaddi Rangannavar (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 15/7/2004 Code of Civil Procedure, ss. 151, 152 - Application for amending Awards - Whether award made by reference court can amend giving additional market value and interest when respondents did not file appeals against original orders passed by reference court; Whether application made under s. 152 CPC barred by time - Held, application not made for correction of any arithmetical or clerical errors but only for amending awards in view of change brought about by law - Hence applications not barred by time - Respondents could not have filed appeals because amendment to Act was brought into force giving additional benefits subsequently but with retrospective effect from the given date - Conclusions arrived at by High Court are correct and sustainable...

Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 5/5/2004 Land Acquisition Act, ss.18, 30 - Reference under s.30 and claim of apportionment - Person who had notice of the acquisition proceedings and who, by virtue of s.50, is debarred from filing a Reference under s.18 cannot be allowed to apply for a Reference under s.30 - Claim now made was barred on principle of res-judicata or principles analogous thereto - Under s.18 if a party wants to claim a Reference it is to be done within a particular period - Affirmed order of Land Acquisition Officer and hold that Respondents cannot claim a Reference under Section 30 nor claim apportionment....

Union of India and Others v. Krishan Lal Arneja and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 28/4/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ss.4, 17(1)and(4) - Questioning validity of notification, which invokes urgency clause - High Court quashed the impugned notification - Decision in Banwari Lal and Shakuntala Gupta of this Court in relation to the same notification - Decisions are binding as precedents on question of validity of the notification, which invokes urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act - Order of High Court confirmed...

Union of India v. Messrs Banwari Lal and Sons Private Limited (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 12/4/2004 Requisition and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 - Whether use and occupation of property by appellant after 10.3.1987 was wrongful and illegal and in nature of trespass; and whether arbitrator failed to take into account relevant factors in assessing damages awarded in favour of respondent - In view of permission granted by Court enabling appellant to use and occupy

property up to 31.3.1993, it cannot be said that possession of appellant was illegal and wrongful and in nature of trespass - Damages were claimable not on basis of mesne profits but on basis of fair rent - Large number of relevant factors have not been taken into account by arbitrator while awarding damages - Appeal allowed...

Natural Gas and Others v. Union of India and Others Reference Under Article 143(1) of The Constitution of India v. (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 25/3/2004 Gujarat Gas (Regulation of Transmission, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2001 - Natural Gas including Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is a Union subject covered by Entry 53 of List I - Parliament has exclusive legislative competence to enact laws on natural gas - States have no legislative competence to make laws on the subject of natural gas and liquefied natural gas under Entry 25 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution - The Gujarat Gas (Regulation of Transmission, Supply & Distribution) Act, 2001, relating to the natural gas or liquefied natural gas (LNG), is without any legislative competence and the Act is to that extent ultra vires of the Constitution....

V.Subrahmanya Rao v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 4/2/2004 Land Acquisition - arriving at a market value -proximity of the two lands, nearness of the land to habitation or public amenities or road etc. - factors to be considered - Appellant has chosen not to lead any evidence in order to show that his land was near to the other lands and/or that it was similarly situated - not open to parties to try and lead additional evidence in this Court - market value has to be fixed on evidence led in each case - evidence shows market value at the appropriate time was Rs. 80, 000/- per acre - fixed at Rs. 80, 000/- per acre - appeal dismissed...

Union of India v. Rattan Singh (Dead, Represented By His Legal Representatives) (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 4/2/2004 Land Acquisition - held on facts, Union of India and Another v. Ram Phool and Another, (Civil Appeal No. 8137 of 2002) applies - also held, respondent-claimants have not been granted interest - can move under s.28A of the Land Acquisition Act if so adviced....

H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 27/1/2004 Land acquired for setting up housing colony - high court erred in not taking into consideration two sale instances - approach of reference court correct - claimants entitled to enhancement, interest and solatium...

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 7/1/2004 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 18 - Compensation - Land had high potential for building construction activity - Held, taking an increase of 60% over the price of Rs. 15.40 per sq. yard the value comes to Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard - Further held, the respondent will also to be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits....

V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by LRs. v. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal R. Officer (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 17/12/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 5-A, 17(4) - Possession - Acquired by draft notification - Compensation - Enhancement - Held, the High Court was right in taking the sale instances at the rate of Rs. 45/- per square yard, as the basis for the determination of market value of the acquired land. After making 1/3rd deduction on account of laying out of roads and for other developmental purposes, the High Court has worked out the value of the acquired land at Rs. 30/- per square yard - Further held, in the facts and circumstances there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached at by the High Court....

Union of India v. Savjiram and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 17/12/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land Acquisition Manual of Madhya Pradesh - Paras 43, 44 - Compensation - Valuation of land - Depreciation - Deduction - Held, the Reference Court should decide as to whether there was any removal of the materials as claimed by the appellants or there was no removal as asserted by the claimants-respondents - Further held, since the matter is pending for a long time, it would be proper if the Reference Court decides this question alone permitting the parties to place materials and/or evidence in support of their respective stands as to the removal of the materials alone - Matter remitted back to the Reference Court....

Panna Lal Ghosh and Others v. Land Acquisition Collector and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 12/12/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 6, 23(2) - Acquisition - Compensation - Enhancement - Solatium - Held, due to different nature of the land, the High Court was right in disallowing the claim for enhancement for compensation - Further held, the appellants are thus entitled to enhanced solatium @ 30% and interest under s. 23(2) of the Act....

Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Supai Munda and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 5/12/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 6, 17(4), 18 -

Compensation - Whether reference can be made under s. 18 of the Act when the award is allegedly made under s. 11(2) of the Act - Held, proviso to s. 31(2) of the Act, which provides that the reference under s. 18 of the Act is incapable unless a person has received the compensation amount under protest. This benefit will not be available to the appellants in the present case because, as already noticed, the claimant has received the compensation under duress....

The Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh v. Nookala Rajamallu and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 21/11/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 18, 23 - Compensation - Enhancement - Agricultural lands - Held, the claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard along with statutory entitlements including interest on solatium....

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Harishankar Goyal (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 19/11/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 6, 23(2), 28 - Award - Valuation - Solatium - Interest - Appeal - Held, the High Court has granted interest at the rate of 15% under s. 28, which on the relevant date, provided that on the enhanced compensation interest shall be 6% p.a. for one year from the date of possession. Thereafter, interest is to be at the rate of 15% p.a. till payment in Court - Further held, interest under s. 28 shall be 6% p.a. for the first year from taking possession and thereafter 15% p.a....

Union of India v. K. Balaji Jaya Rama Rao and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 18/11/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 5-A, 6, 9(2), 10 - Acquisition proceedings - Neither the notice nor the notification had the petitioner's name - Held, the purpose of a s. 4 notification is merely to give notice, to the person interested, that his land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose. The person interested who has notice by virtue of the fact that the land is correctly described in the notification and has participated in s. 5-A and the award proceedings, is then precluded from challenging the notification on the ground that the notification was defective - Further held, so long as the property was required for a public purpose, the mere fact that some other property could have been acquired is not a ground on which the High Court can say that the reasoning for acquisition is not sufficient....

Mathai Paulose and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 13/11/2003 Land Acquisition proceedings - Valuation - Nutmeg trees - Enhancement - Both the Reference Court and the High Court increased the valuation of each tree - Held, there is no material to show what was the yield of fruits on the trees or what the market price was on the relevant date - Further held, there is no material on basis of which the court can accept the appellants' plea to enhance the compensation - Not a fit case for interference....

State of Haryana and Others v. Gurcharan Singh and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 12/11/2003 Land & Property - Land was acquired by the Government for work related to construction of Bhakra Canal. After the canal was constructed, the land was no longer required by the Government - Respondent filed suit for restoration of land - Held, the Government, having taken a policy decision, must implement that policy decision fairly and uniformly. It is not open to the Government to discriminate between persons similarly situated - Further held, it has been shown that the Government has acted on the policy decision and released land in favour of other persons. Nothing has been brought on record to show why the policy should not be applied in favour of the respondents. It is admitted that the land is no longer required by the Government - Further, even though there may be no right in the respondents to claim back possession, it is not a fit case for interference as it has been clearly shown that the Government is acting discriminately....

Punjab Small Scale I. and E. Corporation Limited and Another v. Jhujhar Singh and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 6/11/2003 Appellant-corporation published an advertisement for allotment of industrial plots - Respondent no.1 was allotted an industrial plot - Deposited 40% of the tentative price - Writ petitions filed in the High Court challenging the process of allotment of plots - High Court directed fresh advertisement and re-allotment - Delay and latches - Held, respondent no. 1 did not think it necessary or appropriate to approach the High Court early on more than 4 occasions : (i) when the learned Single Judge cancelled the allotment; (ii) when the refund was made; (iii) when the second advertisement was published; and (iv) even immediately after the Division bench pronounced the judgment - Further held, under the circumstances, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches....

Haryana State Handloom and Handicrafts Corporation Limited and Another v. Jain School Society (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 29/10/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 17, 18 -

Acquisition - Award - Reference filed for enhancement of compensation - Writ petition filed after 22 years - Held, mere fact that the land was not put to use for the purpose it was acquired by itself did not justify the delay and latches. Beside there is no explanation for the delay and latches - Further held, the High Court was entirely in error in stating that the respondents could not be accused of any delay and that the delay in fact showed the bona fides of the respondents. Further, the High Court seems to have overlooked the fact that the respondents had applied for enhancement of compensation and had filed a Writ Petition only after those proceedings were over....

Executive Engineer Gu. Water Supply and Sewage Board v. Thakar Galabji Samji Valmiya (D) Through Lrs (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 16/10/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 4 - Award - Reference - Fixing value of land - Held, this is no method of fixing the value of the land - Further held, Matter remitted back to the Reference Court. The parties are at liberty to lead whatever evidence they want in order to prove the market value of the land. It will be open to the claimants to claim compensation either on basis of market value or on yield basis. It will also be open to the respondents to prove whatever documents they want to in accordance with law....

Chairman and M.D., B.P.L. Limited v. S.P. Gururaja and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 13/10/2003 Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - s. 28(1) - PIL - Economic development of a state halted by a PIL - Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board acquired vast tract of land for the purpose of allotment to entrepreneurs who intended to set up industries in the State of Karnataka - Petitioners granted land for setting up of industries - PIL filed questioning the allotment of land - Held, the Board and the State had not committed any illegality which could have been a subject matter of judicial review. The High Court in our opinion committed a manifest error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the delay in this case had defeated equity. The allotment was made in the year 1995. The writ application was filed after one year. By that time the company had not only took possession of the land but also made sufficient investment. Delay of this nature shall have been considered by the High Court to be of vital importance - Furthermore, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the factum of resistance in the matter from those persons whose lands have been acquired. Only because the lands are vested in the State upon acquisition thereof, the same by itself would not mean that the persons whose lands were acquired were not interested in getting the allotment. The locus standi of the respondent ought to have been taken into consideration having regard to the specific pleas raised in this behalf by the appellants herein....

Delhi Administration and Others v. Madan Lal Nangia and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 8/10/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 4 - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - s. 12 - Evacuee property - Acquisition by Central Government for the planned development of Delhi - Held, the very fact that s. 12, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act provides for acquisition by the Central Government clearly indicates that evacuee properties are not properties of the Central Government. As they are not properties of the government, they can be acquired, not just under s. 12, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, but even under the Land Acquisition Act - Further held, it is for the Government to decide whether or not an evacuee property is to be left with the Custodian for the purposes of distribution under the various Acts or whether some other public purpose is more important. It would be open to the Government to acquire evacuee property and give to the Custodian compensation for such acquisition....

Virendrapal Singh and Another v. Exe. Engineering Express Highway Divn. No. 2 and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 7/10/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 18 - Enhancement of compensation for acquired land - Lands not similarly situated to lands on the basis of which enhanced compensation is demanded - Held, once it is held that the lands are not similarly situated and there is no challenge to that finding, it is not open to orally submit that the lands are similarly situated - Further held, it is not possible to accept the submission that compensation as per those awards should also be given to the appellants....

Durgeshwari Devi (Dead) Through Lr v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 7/10/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 17(1) - Compensation - Land acquired for construction of a commercial complex - Development authority neither paid the compensation nor allotted the shop in the commercial complex as per agreement - Held, the Allahabad Development Authority is bound to comply with the compromise and ensure that a shop in this complex (as per clause 'C' of the Compromise Terms) is allotted to the appellant - Further held, the Allahabad Development Authority must compensate the appellant for having deprived her the use of this money for all these years by payment of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum....

Bhim Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Another (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 24/9/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 18, 51-A - High Court reduced the compensation awarded by the Reference Court based on previous judgments - Deductiond due to development cost - Held, when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier

proceedings and when in one such proceeding this Court has already approved the rate fixed then the best method would be to look at the earlier judgments and awards. Therefore, the High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier judgments - Further held, the fact that the judgments on which reliance was placed were not shown to this Court leads to a presumption that there had been no deductions in those judgments. It is thus not possible to accept the submission that there should have been no deduction....

Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 5/9/2003 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 6(2), 11A - Whether the award made under s. 11A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is barred by limitation - Held, s. 6(2) makes it abundantly clear that the last of the dates of the publication and giving of such public notice shall 'hereinafter' be referred to as the date of publication of the declaration. Therefore, the expression 'date of publication of declaration' appearing in s. 11A, a stage subsequent to s. 6, answering the situation 'hereinafter' has to be the last of the dates out of the three modes of publication ordained by the statute - Further held, in substance, the triumvirate modes are cumulative and inseparable in the sense that unless all the three modes are resorted to and completed, there is no scope for the limitation period of 2 years beginning to run or for the penal consequence envisaged ensuing therefrom....

Smt. Kanak and Another v. Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 1/9/2003 Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 - U.P Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 18 - Maintainability of a writ petition questioning an award made on a reference under s. 18, Land Acquisition Act - Held, where an appeal has not been filed by the state, such an appeal would be maintainable with the leave of the Court. Furthermore, the writ petition was entertained. The appellants had filed a counter affidavit and the matter was argued on merit, and in that view of the matter, it is too late in the day to contend that the respondent herein should have availed alternative remedy - Further held, the High Court should have remitted the matter back to the reference court with a direction that the respondent-Parishad may be impleaded as a party so as to enable it to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and examine its own witnesses and bring on records such other materials as it may seem fit and proper....