1995 JTR(SC) 316
1995 AIR(SC) 2283 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 3403 ; 1995 2 CurCC(SC) 231 ; 1995 3 JT 87 ; 1995 2 RRR 294 ; 1995 2 Scale 235 ; 1995 3 SCC 333 ; 1995 2 SCR 420 ; 1995 1 UJ 726 ; 1995 KHC 827
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Gurdial Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4220-24 of 1982
Decided on 1-3-1995.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.25(2)
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as operative at the time, governed the acquisition of 4.5 acres notified on February 15, 1979, for a Milk Chilling-Cum-Demonstration Center, with the Collector initially awarding compensation at Rs.13,816 per acre, later enhanced on reference to Rs.30,000 per acre, and the High Court modifying it based on mutation proceedings showing values between Rs.9,400 and Rs.14,000 per acre. The unamended Section 25(1) and Section 9 required the claimant to make a claim; in the absence of any claim by the appellants, Section 25(2) operated, prohibiting the Court from awarding compensation exceeding the Collectors amount, thereby limiting their entitlement regardless of market value evidence.
(B) Key principles include the mandatory requirement for the claimant to make a claim under Section 9, the interplay between Sections 25(1) and 25(2), the bar on the Court exceeding the Collectors award when no claim is made, and the evidentiary limitations on market value submissions when omitted procedurally.
Facts of the case:
The land was acquired under Section 4 notification in 1979, compensation was fixed by the Collector, enhanced on reference, and challenged on appeal with market value evidence showing higher amounts, but no claim was filed by the appellants.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in relying on mutation proceedings to enhance compensation; the appellants were precluded from claiming more than the Collectors award due to non-filing of a claim under the unamelled Act.
Issues:
Whether the High Court could enhance compensation based on market value despite no claim being filed, and whether mutation proceedings could override the Collectors determination.
Ratio Decidendi:
Under Section 25(2), where no claim is made, the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the Collectors amount, rendering market value evidence irrelevant in such procedural default.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed, and the compensation remains at the Collectors award of Rs.30,000 per acre.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as operative at the time, governed the acquisition of 4.5 acres notified on February 15, 1979, for a Milk Chilling-Cum-Demonstration Center, with the Collector initially awarding compensation at Rs.13,816 per acre, later enhanced on reference to Rs.30,000 per acre, and the High Court modifying it based on mutation proceedings showing values between Rs.9,400 and Rs.14,000 per acre. The unamended Section 25(1) and Section 9 required the claimant to make a claim; in the absence of any claim by the appellants, Section 25(2) operated, prohibiting the Court from awarding compensation exceeding the Collectors amount, thereby limiting their entitlement regardless of market value evidence.
(B) Key principles include the mandatory requirement for the claimant to make a claim under Section 9, the interplay between Sections 25(1) and 25(2), the bar on the Court exceeding the Collectors award when no claim is made, and the evidentiary limitations on market value submissions when omitted procedurally.
Facts of the case:
The land was acquired under Section 4 notification in 1979, compensation was fixed by the Collector, enhanced on reference, and challenged on appeal with market value evidence showing higher amounts, but no claim was filed by the appellants.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in relying on mutation proceedings to enhance compensation; the appellants were precluded from claiming more than the Collectors award due to non-filing of a claim under the unamelled Act.
Issues:
Whether the High Court could enhance compensation based on market value despite no claim being filed, and whether mutation proceedings could override the Collectors determination.
Ratio Decidendi:
Under Section 25(2), where no claim is made, the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the Collectors amount, rendering market value evidence irrelevant in such procedural default.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed, and the compensation remains at the Collectors award of Rs.30,000 per acre.
G.K.BANSAL, PREM MALHOTRA, SANJAY BANSAL
JUDGMENT
A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on Feb. 15, 1979, acquiring 4.5 acres of land for establishing in Milk Chilling-Cum-Demonstration Center at Village Sardulgarh in Bhatinda District of Punjab State. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated March 23, 1979, awarded a sum of Rs.13,816/- per acre as compensation. On reference, the Addl. Distt. Judge, Bhatinda, by decree dated April 30, 1981, enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. On appeal under Section 54 by the State, the High Court in R.F.A. No. 1065 of 1981 and batch, by its order dated September 15, 1982, reduced the compensation to Rs.30,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the appellants filed these appeals by special leave.
2. Shri Prem Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, has strenuously contended that the sale deed (Exs. A1 to A5) and Mutation Proceedings (Exs. A7 to A16) would show that the market value ranged between Rs.3,12,000/- to Rs.1,08,000/-. He submitted that the High Court was not justified in relying upon the solitary mutation proceedings noted in the judgment to determine the compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre. We find no force in this contention. It is seen that under the unamended Act, by operation of Section 9, the claimant or the owner is enjoined to make claim giving particulars of the claim. Section 25 of the Act, as originally stood, provided that in a case where a claim is made the amount awarded by the Court shall not exceed the amount claimed or less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section11. This is by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 25. But in case where the claim was not made, sub-section (2) operated and held the field. Sub-Section (2) of Section 25 reads thus :
"When the applicant has refused to make such claim, or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector".
Thus, it can be seen that in a case where the applicant had omitted to make the claim, then the Court had no jurisdiction to award the compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. In these cases, no claim had been admittedly made by the appellants.
3. This provision was not noted by the High Court. The High Court, by referring to the mutation proceedings in which the market value was shown to be ranging between Rs.9,400/- to Rs.14,000/- per acre, had enhanced the compensation to Rs.30,000/- per acre. That appeal was allowed to become final; and so nothing can be done with the market value as fixed by the High Court. But these appeals are dismissed in view of the statutory prohibition contained in sub-section (2), Section 25 of the Act. We make no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 2283