2001 JTR(SC) 235
2001 AIR(SC) 992 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 659 ; 2001 1 AllCJ 526 ; 2001 AllLJ 497 ; 2001 42 AllLR 821 ; 2001 1 AWC 845 ; 2001 2 ICC 51 ; 2001 2 JCR(SC) 20 ; 2001 1 JLJR(SC) 518 ; 2001 2 JT 489 ; 2001 1 PLJ 535 ; 2001 2 PLJR(SC) 23 ; 2001 2 RCR(Civ) 118 ; 2001 92 RD 342 ; 2001 1 Scale 679 ; 2001 2 SCC 646 ; 2001 2 UPLBEC 1127 ; 2001 KHC 1038 ; 2001 1 Supreme 591
2001(1) Supreme 591
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Variava, JJ.
Agra Development Authority -Appellant
versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7561 of 2000)
Decided on 7-2-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Arvind Verma, Ms. Neeti Dikshit, Advocates for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondents : B.D. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, Anish Dayal, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Chandra Shekhar, S.K. Verma, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Anil Kumar Sharma, Ms. Reena Singh, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Appellants though aware of acquisition proceedings are still entitled to be given an opportunity under Section 50 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to adduce evidence in the proceedings before the Collector for fixation of cost of acquisition.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.50, S.6, S.4
(A) The Land Acquisition Act 1894 sections referred to, namely Section 4, Section 6, and Section 50, govern the procedural framework for acquisition of land and determination of compensation. Section 4 relates to the publication of a notification declaring intention to acquire land, while Section 6 provides for the issuance of a notice and conduct of inquiry, including fixation of compensation. Section 50 mandates that where land is acquired for the benefit of a particular body, that body must be given an opportunity to appear and adduce evidence before the Collector for determining the amount of compensation, and no reference under Section 18 can be demanded by such body by virtue of this section. In this case, the notification under Section 4 and subsequent notification under Section 6 led to an award fixing compensation at different rates inside and outside the municipal area. The Appellant, being the beneficiary of the acquisition, challenged the compensation rates and alleged fraud, but the court found no merit. The core dispute centered on whether the Appellant was given a meaningful opportunity to adduce evidence under Section 50, which was held to be lacking.
(B) The key legal principles include that a beneficiary entity cannot claim a reference under Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, the fixation of compensation must follow a just procedure with an opportunity to adduce evidence, and an award can only be remitted for re-fixing if procedural fairness is demonstrably absent. The court emphasized that mere awareness of proceedings or holding meetings is insufficient compliance with Section 50.
Facts of the case:
A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 30th January, 1989, for acquisition of approximately 751.22 acres of land, followed by a notification under Section 6 on 8th February, 1990. An award was made on 29th February, 1992, fixing compensation at Rs.130 per sq. yd. inside municipal limits and Rs.97.50 per sq. yd. outside. The Appellant challenged the compensation rates, alleging lack of opportunity to adduce evidence and fraud in fixation of compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substance in the fraud allegation regarding differing prices in the agreement. It held that the Appellant was aware of proceedings but was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence as required by Section 50. The court clarified that amounts deposited under interim orders would not be recalled and would be adjusted finally.
Issues:
Whether the Appellant, as the beneficiary of acquisition, had been given a fair opportunity to adduce evidence for determining compensation under Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compliance with Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act is mandatory, requiring the affected party to be given notice and an opportunity to present evidence; absence of such opportunity warrants remission to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-fixing compensation in accordance with the statute.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-fixing compensation after giving notice to the Appellant to appear and adduce evidence, with a timeline of six months for such reconsideration.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act 1894 sections referred to, namely Section 4, Section 6, and Section 50, govern the procedural framework for acquisition of land and determination of compensation. Section 4 relates to the publication of a notification declaring intention to acquire land, while Section 6 provides for the issuance of a notice and conduct of inquiry, including fixation of compensation. Section 50 mandates that where land is acquired for the benefit of a particular body, that body must be given an opportunity to appear and adduce evidence before the Collector for determining the amount of compensation, and no reference under Section 18 can be demanded by such body by virtue of this section. In this case, the notification under Section 4 and subsequent notification under Section 6 led to an award fixing compensation at different rates inside and outside the municipal area. The Appellant, being the beneficiary of the acquisition, challenged the compensation rates and alleged fraud, but the court found no merit. The core dispute centered on whether the Appellant was given a meaningful opportunity to adduce evidence under Section 50, which was held to be lacking.
(B) The key legal principles include that a beneficiary entity cannot claim a reference under Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, the fixation of compensation must follow a just procedure with an opportunity to adduce evidence, and an award can only be remitted for re-fixing if procedural fairness is demonstrably absent. The court emphasized that mere awareness of proceedings or holding meetings is insufficient compliance with Section 50.
Facts of the case:
A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 30th January, 1989, for acquisition of approximately 751.22 acres of land, followed by a notification under Section 6 on 8th February, 1990. An award was made on 29th February, 1992, fixing compensation at Rs.130 per sq. yd. inside municipal limits and Rs.97.50 per sq. yd. outside. The Appellant challenged the compensation rates, alleging lack of opportunity to adduce evidence and fraud in fixation of compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substance in the fraud allegation regarding differing prices in the agreement. It held that the Appellant was aware of proceedings but was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence as required by Section 50. The court clarified that amounts deposited under interim orders would not be recalled and would be adjusted finally.
Issues:
Whether the Appellant, as the beneficiary of acquisition, had been given a fair opportunity to adduce evidence for determining compensation under Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compliance with Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act is mandatory, requiring the affected party to be given notice and an opportunity to present evidence; absence of such opportunity warrants remission to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-fixing compensation in accordance with the statute.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-fixing compensation after giving notice to the Appellant to appear and adduce evidence, with a timeline of six months for such reconsideration.
JUDGMENT
S.N. Variava, J.-Leave granted.
2. This Appeal has been filed against a Judgment dated 5th January, 2000, wherein a writ petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed.
3. On 30th January, 1989, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 had been issued for acquiring approximately 751.22 acres of land. On 8th February, 1990, notification under Section 6 was issued. On 29th February, 1992, Award was made. This land had been acquired by the Appellant for development of the Taj Nagri Avas Yojna Phase II. Under the Award the compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs.130/- per sq. yd. for the land situated inside the municipal area and at the rate of Rs.97.50 per sq. yd. for the land situated outside the municipal area.
4. The Appellants are aggrieved by the fixing of compensation at the above mentioned rates. As the land was acquired for their benefit they cannot, by virtue of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, demand a reference under Section 18. The Appellants have thus challenged the Award. The Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated 5th January, 2000.
5. It was also urged that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had played a fraud in fixing the rate of compensation. The only basis for this submission was that the Agreement, on which reliance was placed to fix the compensation, contained two different prices at different places. We find no substance in this submission. The Agreement is a registered document. The price relied on is the price shown in the records. There is also, on the Agreement, the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar showing what the correct price was. All this makes it clear that the price relied upon is the correct price in the Agreement.
6. It is next urged that the Appellants were not given any opportunity to adduce evidence in the proceedings before the Collector for fixation of the cost of acquisition. It was fairly admitted that the Appellants were aware of the proceedings. However, no notice had been issued to them and they had not been given any opportunity to adduce evidence for purposes of determining the amount of compensation.
7. To this submission no adequate answer could be given by the Respondents. All that was submitted was that the Appellants were aware of the proceedings and had held meetings with the Government and the Collector. In our view this is not sufficient. What is required by Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act is that the body for whom the property is being acquired is given an opportunity to appear and adduce evidence for the purposes of determining the amount of compensation. Nothing could be shown to us that this had been done. On this point the matter requires to be sent back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for refixing compensation payable.
8. Thus the Appeal is allowed. We remit the matter back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-fixing the compensation payable after giving a notice to the Appellant to appear and adduce evidence before him. As the matter is being remitted back, we clarify that if any other party is desirous of adducing further evidence, they will also be entitled to do so. After considering the material, which is placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition officer shall fix the compensation and re-declare or amend his Award appropriately within a period of six months from today.
9. Before we part with this Appeal it must be mentioned that by an interim order dated 9th May, 2000, stay to the operation of the Award, had been granted subject to the Appellant s depositing compensation at the rate of Rs.78/- per sq. yard within the Municipal limits and RS. 58/- per sq. yard outside the Municipal limits. We were informed that this amount has been deposited. By an order dated 29th September, 2000 this Court permitted the competent authority to disburse the amount deposited, we have been told that the amount has already been disbursed. Mr. Sibal has very fairly stated that the competent authority need not recall the amounts disbursed from the persons to whom they have been paid. We clarify that as the acquisition proceedings are not being set aside and the Special Land Acquisition Officer is merely being directed to refix the compensation, the amounts already disbursed pursuant to the orders of this Court will not be recalled but will be finally adjusted in the compensation which is ultimately found to be payable.
10. We also clarify that if the acquisition has been challenged in any proceedings, this order will not affect those proceedings. The concerned court will decide those proceedings on their own merits.
11. The Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed accordingly.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Agra Development Authority v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., 2001(1) Supreme 591 : 2001 (2) JT 489 : 2001 (2) CCC 139 : (2001) 2 SCC 646 : AIR 2001 SC 992 : 2001 (1) Civil LJ 824 : 2001 (3) Civil LJ 713
00038