IMPORTANT POINT
Whether Commissioner has limited power under proviso to Section 11(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the approval of the award of Collector or it can reduce the compensation fixed by Collector by re-appreciating the matter needs to be determined by a larger Bench.

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants are the owners of the land situated in Akola district, Maharashtra. The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) proposing to acquire the lands belonging to the appellants. A notice was also issued to the appellants under Section 9 of the Act for submitting their claim to compensation in respect of the area under acquisition. The appellants submitted their claim contending that the land under acquisition was converted to non-agricultural use by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola, dated 3.3.1983. The appellants also pointed out that by the said order, residential lay outs were sanctioned in the lands sought to be acquired and plots were also demarcated. The appellants also pointed out that the lands in question were surrounded by developed colonies with residential quarters, industries, market yards and other commercial complexes in the near vicinity. The appellants also contended that the land is close to national highway and State bus-stand. On the said basis the appellants claimed a compensation @ Rs. 1.75 per sq. ft. Based on the claim of the appellants, the Collector who held an inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, called for information report from the Assistant Director of Town Planning for determination of the compensation payable. The said Asstt. Director of Town Planning in turn referred the matter to the Director, Town Planning, Pune, who as per his letter dated 20.10.2000 taking into consideration the non-agricultural potentiality of the lands and other prevailing factors, directed that the lands in question should be valued taking into consideration the non-agricultural potentiality of the land. Based on the said recommendation of the Director of Town Planning, the Asstt. Director, Town Planning, evaluated the land and held that the total value of the land is Rs.21,76,622/- per hectare. The said finding was given also taking into consideration the sales transactions of the lands in the near vicinity. The Land Acquisition Officer (the Collector) on the basis of the said report, prepared a proposed award wherein he fixed the plot area as 53,991 sq. meters and fixed the valuation at Rs.130/- per sq. meter. From the said valuation, he deducted 8% towards the period of 2 years which would be required for selling of the plots by the appellants and after giving deduction to such deferred payment, he fixed the compensation payable to the appellant at Rs. 1,82,29,048/-.

4. The said proposed award was sent to the Commissioner, Amravati Division, respondent No.2 herein, as required under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act for his approval. The said Commissioner as per his order dated 28.3.2001 after reappreciating the material on record, came to the conclusion that the lands in question remained to be agricultural lands, therefore, the value fixed by the Collector treating the same as potentially non-agricultural land, was erroneous and he came to the conclusion that the value should be Rs.72,400/- per hectare. He also reconsidered the additions and deductions made by the Collector and came to the conclusion that the valuation made by the Collector was improper hence directed the Collector to refix the compensation as directed in his order dated 28.3.2001.

5. It is against this order of the Commissioner made under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act that the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Mumbai, Nagpur Bench, contending that the Commissioner acting under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act had no jurisdiction to reappreciate the material found in the records of the Collector as an appellate authority. It was also contended that the authority of the Commissioner acting under the said provision of law was only to approve or not to approve the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer (the Collector). The High Court rejected this contention holding