IMPORTANT POINT
White on reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act or on appeal against enhanced compensation the Court cannot reduce compensation less than the offer made by the Collector.

ORDER

Leave granted in SLP © Nos. 18543- 45,19947-49,18644 and 18646 of 1995.

2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ) was published on 3.9.1973 acquiring 863 bighas of land situated in villages Gumma, Kamli, Dangyar and Ambota in Parwanoo township. The award under Section 11 was made by the Collector on 14.7.1977. He determined the compensation at varying rates between Rs. 14,195/- per bigha and Rs. 500/- per bigha for lands classified into seven categories. On reference under Section 18, the District Judge, Solan by award and decree dated 15.5.1991 uniformly awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.14,195/- per bigha. In Civil Appeal Nos. 8274-83 of 1985, acquisition was made in 1976 but the lands were left out from 1973 notification. On November 9, 1978, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation similar to compensation awarded for 1973 acquisition. Taking into consideration the trend in appreciation of land prices, the District Judge vide award dated May 23, 1991 awarded common price for all categories of land, i.e., Rs. 24.000/- per bigha. On appeal by the State and cross appeals by the claimants, the High Court by judgment and order dated 4.5.1995 reduced the compensation to the- uniform rate of Rs. 7,100 per claimants have filed these appeals by special leave.

3. This Court issued notice dated 28.8.1995 confined to the correctness of the order the High Court with respect to first two categories of lands, nemely, Kuhal land for which the Land Acquisitton Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 14,195/- per bigha and Latuhal land forwhich a sum of Rs. 9,425/- has been awarded. In earlier cases, notice was not confined to the above aspects but leave was/ granted. Thus all these appeals have been posted together for disposal.

4. Shri Ashok Chhabra and Shri R.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised three-foldcontention. Firstly. that the High Court has committed manifest error in reducing the compensation to 1 and 2 category lands, namely, Kuhal and Latuhal lands for which the Land Acquisition Officer had offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 14,l95/- and Rs. 9,425/- per bigha respectively which is an offer and under Section 25 of the Act, the High Court cannot reduce the compensation less than what was offered by the Collector. Secondly, it is contended that in view of the finding recorded by the District Judge and the High Court, namely, that the lands are possessed of potential value for building purposes, 50% reduction of compensation resulting in uniform rate of Rs.7,100/- per bigha is not correct. The claimants are entitled to higher compensation. It is also contended that deduction of 50% towards developmental charges is not correct on the facts in this case since the finding of the High Court is that all the lands are possessed of same potentialities. Thirdly, it is contended by Shri Jain, learned senior counsel that after the award was made by the reference Court under Section 26, notices were issued to the purchasers to pay revised price on the basis of. the enhanced market value. When the same was questioned the High Court dismissed the same. Therefore, when the beneficiary was seeking to avail of the award passed by the Court and sought to recover the enhanced compensation from the beneficiaries, nothing prevented the State to have the compensation paid to the land owners whose land has been acquired. Shri Parbhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent resisted all the contentions.

5. The first question, therefore, is: whether the High Court was justified in reducing the compensation in respect of Kuhal and Katuhal lands classified by the Collector to Rs. 14,195/- and Rs. 9,425/- per bigha respectively. Section 25 of the Act says that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not the less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. It is settled law that the award made by the Collector is an offer made by him o