IMPORTANT POINT
It is open to parties to enter into a contract u/s 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, without the necessity to determine compensation u/s 23(1) and would receive market value at the rates incorporated in the contract signed u/s 11(2) of the Act in which event the award need not be in Form 14.

ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard the counsel on both sides.

2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894 (For short, the Act ). was published on August 2, 1984 acquiring the lands situated in village Sarigan, District Bulsar in Gujarat State for industrial purpose. Possession also was taken after dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. It is not necessary to dilate on the proceedings taken earlier under Article 226 of the Constitution. Suffice it to state that there was an agreement between the parties that an award could be made under Section 11(2) of the Act pursuant to which the Land Acquisition Officer on June 4, 1991 made the award in terms of the agreement. The appellant challenged the correctness of the award by filing the writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated September 10, 1993. Thus these appeals by special leave.

3. This Court by order dated February 28, 1994 issued notice confined to the question whether the appellants are entitled to solatium, interest and additional amount under Sections 23(2), 28 and 23(1-A) of the Act. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit contending that in view of the agreements entered by the appellants on January 2, 1981 and subsequent agreement dated March 8, 1985, which have been filed as sample agreements before this Court, the appellants are not entitled to the payment of interest, solatium and additional amounts under the Act.

4. Shri R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the award passed by the Collector is not in conformity with Section 11(2) of the Act inasmuch as the agreements were not executed before the Collector and they were not in the prescribed form. He drew our attention to Form No.14, prescribed by the Rules and submitted that as disclosed by the Form itself, such an agreement has to be executed by the owner of the land in presence of the Land Acquisition Officer and has to be signed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the present case, the agreements executed in 1985 were between the owners of the land GIDC for whose benefit the lands were acquired. They were not signed in presence of the Land Acquisition Officer nor did the Land Acquisition Officer put his signature thereon. Therefore, the award passed by the Collector cannot be said to be an award under Section 11(2) of the Act and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to payment of solatium, interest and additional benefits payable under the Act. We do not find any substance in this connection.

5. In this case, the agreements were between the owners and the GIDC for whose benefit the lands were acquired. Even before the notification under Section 4 was issued, the owners and the GIDC had entered into an agreement whereby the owners had agreed to part with possession of their lands so as to enable GIDC to establish Udyog Nagar thereon. Under the said agreements, the GIDC was permitted to enjoy continuous possession of those lands till the process of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act was to be completed. While entering into these agreements, the owners had agreed to accept compensation @ Rs.6,100/- per acre. Thereafter, Section 4, notification was published on August 2, 1984. While the proceedings were pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners and GIDC again in the year 1985 entered into separate agreements, whereunder the Corporation agreed to pay and the owners agreed to accept compensation @ Rs.22,857/- per hectare inclusive of solatium and additional benefits payable under the Act. These agreements duly signed were presented before the Collector. On being satisfied about the voluntary nature of the said agreements, the Collector passed an award in terms of those agreements. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the essential requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 11, as applicable in the State of Gujarat, was not complied with. Moreover, Form No.1