1997 JTR(SC) 1466
1998 AIR(SC) 322 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 4301 ; 1998 1 BLJR 586 ; 1998 1 CivCC 386 ; 1997 4 CurCC(SC) 115 ; 1998 DNJ 128 ; 1998 1 ICC 3 ; 1997 9 JT 104 ; 1998 1 PLJR(SC) 20 ; 1998 1 RCR(Civ) 373 ; 1998 1 RLW(Raj) 57 ; 1997 7 Scale 21 ; 1997 7 Scale 2102 ; 1998 2 SCC 572 ; 1997 Supp5 SCR 140 ; 1998 1 UJ 41 ; 1998 KHC 764 ; 1997 9 Supreme 414
1997(9) Supreme 414
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Majmudar and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
The State of Bihar & Ors. -Appellants
versus
D.N. Singh (dead) by LRs. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7695 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2593 of 1996)
Decided on 13-11-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : B.B. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : A.P. Singh and K.N. Rai, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Commissioner exercising powers under proviso to Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act while granting approval to proposal of the Land Acquisition Collector regarding award of compensation to claimants can reduce the suggested amount for different categories of lands sought to be acquired.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.11
(A) Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with its proviso, governs the approval process for compensation awards when land is acquired. The proviso mandates that no award shall be made by the Collector without the prior approval of the appropriate Government or an authorised officer, fixing the threshold for such delegated authority at awards exceeding specified monetary limits. The present case examines whether the Commissioner, acting under a State notification authorising decisions for awards between Rupees Five Lacs and Fifteen Lacs, can reduce the compensation suggested by the Collector for multiple plots acquired together.
(B) The key legal principles are that the award under Section 11(1) is a composite award when multiple plots are acquired under the same notification, the total compensation determines the competent authority for approval, and appellate authority must apply the law as laid down by the highest court, disregarding earlier conflicting precedents.
Facts of the case:
The dispute arises from an award made by the Collector for acquisition of approximately Ac.1.15 gunths of land. The Collector proposed a compensation amount, which fell within a range that triggered delegation under a State notification authorising the Commissioner to approve awards exceeding Rupees Five Lacs but not exceeding Rupees Fifteen Lacs. The Commissioner reduced the compensation, leading to a conflict over whether the Commissioner or the State Government was the proper authority to approve the award.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the Commissioner lacked the power to reduce the compensation. This Court reversed that view, holding that the Commissioner was the competent authority under the proviso to Section 11, as the earlier decision of this Court had established this position. However, the Court noted that if the total compensation exceeded Rupees Fifteen Lacs, the State Government would be the competent authority, a matter not addressed by the High Court.
Issues:
Whether the Commissioner exercising powers under the proviso to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can reduce the compensation amount suggested by the Collector for land acquisition. Whether the total compensation for multiple plots acquired in one notification is to be treated as a composite award for determining the competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Commissioner can exercise powers under the proviso to Section 11 for approving awards within the delegated monetary limit. The total compensation for multiple plots acquired under the same notification constitutes a composite award, and the competent authority is determined based on the aggregate amount, not individual plots.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Courts order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the High Court for further proceedings in accordance with law.
(A) Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with its proviso, governs the approval process for compensation awards when land is acquired. The proviso mandates that no award shall be made by the Collector without the prior approval of the appropriate Government or an authorised officer, fixing the threshold for such delegated authority at awards exceeding specified monetary limits. The present case examines whether the Commissioner, acting under a State notification authorising decisions for awards between Rupees Five Lacs and Fifteen Lacs, can reduce the compensation suggested by the Collector for multiple plots acquired together.
(B) The key legal principles are that the award under Section 11(1) is a composite award when multiple plots are acquired under the same notification, the total compensation determines the competent authority for approval, and appellate authority must apply the law as laid down by the highest court, disregarding earlier conflicting precedents.
Facts of the case:
The dispute arises from an award made by the Collector for acquisition of approximately Ac.1.15 gunths of land. The Collector proposed a compensation amount, which fell within a range that triggered delegation under a State notification authorising the Commissioner to approve awards exceeding Rupees Five Lacs but not exceeding Rupees Fifteen Lacs. The Commissioner reduced the compensation, leading to a conflict over whether the Commissioner or the State Government was the proper authority to approve the award.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the Commissioner lacked the power to reduce the compensation. This Court reversed that view, holding that the Commissioner was the competent authority under the proviso to Section 11, as the earlier decision of this Court had established this position. However, the Court noted that if the total compensation exceeded Rupees Fifteen Lacs, the State Government would be the competent authority, a matter not addressed by the High Court.
Issues:
Whether the Commissioner exercising powers under the proviso to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can reduce the compensation amount suggested by the Collector for land acquisition. Whether the total compensation for multiple plots acquired in one notification is to be treated as a composite award for determining the competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Commissioner can exercise powers under the proviso to Section 11 for approving awards within the delegated monetary limit. The total compensation for multiple plots acquired under the same notification constitutes a composite award, and the competent authority is determined based on the aggregate amount, not individual plots.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Courts order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the High Court for further proceedings in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
3. The short question is whether the Commissioner exercising powers under the proviso to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the Act for short), while granting approval to the proposal of the Land Acquisition Collector regarding the award of compensation to the claimants could reduce the suggested amount for different categories of lands sought to be acquired.
4. The High Court relying upon its earlier decision has taken a view that the Commissioner has no such power. It is true that the proviso to Section 11 lays down that no award shall be made by the Collector under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf and acting on the said proviso the State of Bihar by notification dated March 13, 1995 had authorised the Commissioner of the Division in such class of cases where the total compensation exceeds Rupees Five Lacs but does not exceed Rupees Fifteen Lacs, to be the authority under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act. The High Court s decision cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the view which appealed to the High Court relying upon its earlier decision has been upset by this Court in its decision dated 30th November 1993 rendered in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 7837 of 1993. Following the said decision it must be held that the Commissioner could have exercised powers under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. However, that would not be the end of the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that according to him, as the lands acquired in this case were about Ac.1.15 gunths, the total award offered by the Collector would not be Rs. 5 lacs but would be much less. Therefore, even assuming that the Commissioner had authority to decide the question under the proviso to Section 11(1), if he was not the competent authority he could not have reduced the amount of compensation. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, on the other hand, submitted that the award under Section 11(1) is a comprehensive award and, therefore, if number of pieces of lands are acquired by the same notification, the award would be a composite one awarding compensation to different claimants. And if the total amount of compensation offered in such an award exceeds Rs. 5 lacs, it would fall within the powers of the authority entrusted with the function of approval under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that if that was so, then question would arise whether the total compensation computed by the Collector as payable to all the claimants together would work out to more than Rs. 15 lacs in which case the Commissioner would not be the competent authority to act under proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act but it would be the State Government as the award would exceed Rs. 15 lacs. As these aspects are not dealt with by the High Court, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order under appeal and remand the proceedings by restoring the writ petition on the file of the High Court with a request to proceed further in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversies raised before us on this aspect and it will be for the High Court to decide the same on its own in the light of the relevant evidence which may be produced before it. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No cost.
Appeal allowed.
**********