1996 Supreme(SC) 649

1996(3) Supreme 337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Government of Andhra Pradesh -Appellant
versus
H.E.H., the Nigam, Hyderabad -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5083 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20832 of 1993)
Decided on 22-3-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
The Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, is a self-contained Code and it is not necessary for the State to acquire the excess vacant land vested in it under the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 23-Notification under Section 4(1) published in State Gazette on July 27, 1978-Lands were within Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration covered by Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976-Respondent filed statement under Section 6 of Ceiling Act-State Gazette notification under Section 10(3) declaring acquired land notified on 4.11.1982 as excess land-Possession of acquired land taken on 2.6.1984-Whether excess vacant land covered by Ceiling Act stood vested in State is liable to be acquired under the Act?-Whether it is necessary for the Government to determine compensation under Section 23 of the Ceiling Act for the land which had already vested in it under the Ceiling Act ?

        Held : That determination of the excess ceiling land pursuant to the statement filed under Section 6 becomes conclusive by publication of the notification under sub-section (3) of Section 10 and the excess lands were prohibited to be held under sub-section 3 on and from the date of the commencement of the Act. Such excess land shall vest in the State only from a date specified in the notification. The vesting under Section 10(3) takes effect from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (3) of Section 10 in the State Gazette with effect from the date specified therein. It would thus be apparent that the State acquired absolute right, title and interest in the excess urban vacant land in the State from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act and from February 28, 1983 that date the State Government became absolute owner of the excess vacant land free from all encumbrances. (Para 7)

       Further Held : The Ceiling Act is a self-contained Code. As far as the acquisition of surplus of ceiling land and payment of compensation is concerned, it is governed by the provisions of the Ceiling Act. (Para 8)

       When the vacant land is declared under the Ceiling Act, it is not necessary for the State to acquire the excess vacant land vested in it under the Act. But unfortunate to the appellant that benefit of the declaration was unavailable for the reason that the Government in GOMs No. 1552/MA dated May 20, 1981 had permitted HUDA to acquire the surplus land under the provisions of the Act. In consequence, having exempted the excess vacant lands from the purview of the Ceiling Act, the appellant had denied itself of the benefit of Section 11 of the Ceiling Act to pay compensation as prescribed thereunder. The result is that the appellant would determine the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. (Para 9)

       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 23-Notification under Section 4(1)-Determination of compensation-Compensation claimed at Rs. 30 per sq. yard-HUDA had acquired adjacent land and had sold @ Rs. 35/- per sq. yard after full development-Lands acquired required development-Deduction of developmental charges @ Rs. 29 per sq. yard-Respondent held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 8/- per sq. yard-Claim of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) disallowed.

       Held : The District Judge had proceeded on the premise that the HUDA had acquired adjacent land under the Act and had sold @ Rs. 35/- per sq. yd. and that, therefore, the compensation claimed at Rs. 30 per square yard should be paid to the respondents. That found favour with the High Court. It is stated in the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant that out of the sale consideration of Rs. 35/- per sq. yd., the cost of the land was Rs. 6/- per sq. yd. and Rs. 29/- was collected towards tentative development charges. They were tentative prices fixed thereunder. In other words, Rs. 29/- was incurred towards development charges and Rs. 6/- per sq. yd. was the actual cost. The sales took place in the year 1976. It is seen that the lands were being used as horse-stable. The respondent claimed compensation @ Rs. 30 per sq. yd. It is seen that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on July 27, 1978. The sales by the HUDA of the plots of the neighbouring lands took place in the year 1976 after full development. The lands required development. It is well-settled law that deduction of development charges varies between 33-1/3% to 65%, depending on facts and circumstances in each case. In view of the fact that we have in evidence the tentative developmental charges of Rs. 29 per sq. yd. incurred in 1975-76, taking a pragmatic view we hold that after deducting development charges, the respondent is entitled to compensation @ Rs. 8/- per sq. yd. with a statutory rate of solatium on the enhanced compensation @ 30% and 9% interest for one year from the date of taking possession, i.e., June 2, 1984 and after expiry of one year, @ 15% till the date of deposit. The respondent is not entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1-A) for the reason that the respondent had filed W.P. No. 2510 of 1982 and kept the matter pending till the Amendment Act became operative. The award could not be made on account of the pending proceedings in the High Court and the same was made as per the directions of the High Court. (Para 10)