IMPORTANT POINT
As manifest errors of law have been committed in this case, all the orders passed by this court are set aside, contempt application and interlocutory applications are dismissed ; and the main appeal is received and disposed of on merits accordingly.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 11A-Lapse of acquisition-Respondent purchased the land after the notification under Section 4(1) was published-Possession taken-Land vested in state free from all encumbrance under Section 17(2) unless a notification is made under Section 48(1) withdrawing from the acquisition-Section 11A does not apply and the acquisition does not lapse-Moreover, respondent s purchase is void against state, he cannot challenge the validity of notification etc. (Para 3)
(ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23(1)-Land Acquired-Purchased after notification by respondent-Whether entitled to Compensation-(Yes, not as owner but as a person entitled to step into the shoes of the owner, on the basis of price prevailing on the date of the publication of notification under Section 4(1). (Para 4)
(iii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23(1)-Determination of market value for compensation-Basic valuation for the purpose of collecting stamp duty-Whether can form foundation to determine the market value ? (No) (Para 5)-Instructions of Govt. to determine market value on the basis of valuation register are illegal (Para 6)-Whether land was in a developed area ? (No)-Subsequent development is irrelevant-Whether compensation be determined on square foot basis or on the basis of yardage ? (The later as a large extent of land is acquired)-Procedure-1/3rd of land be deducted towards developmental purposes-The price paid by respondent for purchase will guide its basis.
Held : We are of the view that the respondents would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The respondent is also entitled to interest @ 6% from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit of the amount in the Court. The respondent is also entitled to 15% solatium on Rs. 25,000/- determined as compensation. The appellant is directed to deposit the said amount within six months from the date of the receipt of this order. If possession of any land in excess of the land covered by Section 4(1) has been taken, our order would not cover it and appropriate action according to law should be taken. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J.-We have heard the learned counsel on both sides in the Contempt Petition as well as in I.A. No. 3/94 to review order passed in dismissing the appeal with directions and also the order dated May 5, 1994 passed in the Review Petition. In view of the facts that have been brought to our notice, we directed that the main matter should be disposed of on merits. Accordingly the review petition, Interlocutory Application, contempt petition and the civil appeal have been posted together. After hearing the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that manifest errors of law have been committed in this case. Consequently, all the orders passed by this Court are set aside ; contempt petition and the interlocutory applications are dismissed ; and the main appeal is revived.

2. We have heard the counsel on both sides on merits. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") and Section 17(4), dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A was published on March 8, 1973 acquiring land measuring 0.23 acres for setting up a pumping station to drain out flood water from low lying areas of Buster Palace, Ziamou. The acquired lands bear plot Nos. 97 to 100. Declaration under Section 6 was published on October 9, 1973. Possession of the land was taken on July 5, 1973 and no award came to be passed. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., the respondent in the main case, had purchased the acquired land by sale deed dated February 3, 1989 for a total consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. He filed a writ petition in the High Court for mandamus commanding the appellants to pay compensation in respect of the lands in question on the basis of the market value fixed by the District Magistrate, Collector, Lucknow (Annexure No. 6) filed in the High Court. The Division Bench by order dated November 17, 1992, allowed the writ petition, issued mandamus and directed that the compensation should be paid to the respondents in accordance with the market value assessed by the Collector at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square foot with all consequential benefits of solatium and interest under the Act as amended by Amendment Act, 68 of 1984.

3. The learned Attorney General for the appellants contended that after the judgment, it has come to light that in respect of the self-same lands, the market value as per the guidelines issued by the Government was determined for stamp duty at Rs. 80/- per square yard in Ziamou area and the respondent himself had purchased the land for Rs. 60,000/- in 1989. The determination of the compensation by the Collector @ Rs. 200/- per square foot is an obvious error apparent on the face of the record and the directions issued by the Division Bench are vitiated by manifest error of law. Shri Gopal Subramanyam, the learned senior counsel, who has sought for and granted 15 adjournments on the ground that matter is being settled, has informed the Court that the settlement has not been reached and it is under process. He has sought further extension of time. Since the case has been adjourned several times, we are not inclined to adjourn the case. In his usual fairness, he has stated that he does not stand on technicalities. The respondent has purchased the land in question. The acquisition covered about 10,000 square feet in addition, the respondent had purchased another 5,000/- square feet which was also taken possession of by the respondent under the notification but the same does not form part of the acquisition. He contended that since possession was taken before declaration under Section 6 was published, it was not validly taken. Admittedly, the award was not made even after two years of the coming into force of the Amendment Act. Therefore, the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 shall stand lapsed by operation of Section 11A of the Act. Thereby, the respondent is entitled to the compensation on the basis of prevailing market value. The District Collector had as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 132

IMPORTANT POINTAs manifest errors of law have been committed in this case, all the orders passed by this court are set aside, contempt application and interlocutory applications are dismissed ; and the main appeal is received and disposed of on merits accordingly.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
As manifest errors of law have been committed in this case, all the orders passed by this court are set aside, contempt application and interlocutory applications are dismissed ; and the main appeal is received and disposed of on merits accordingly.