IMPORTANT POINT
The Government while invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring a land in which the Government also had some or other of interest, need not go for acquiring their interest as well and what is permissible as well as obligated for acquisition is only of such of the private interest of third parties other than that of the Government.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6 and 23-Acquisition of immovable properties, land and building-Compensation claim-Apportionment-Records produced and admitted in evidence proved that the lands, buildings thereon and appurtenance thereto belonged to family of Ranas-Admitted status of perpetual lessees in respect of them-Only condition imposed in the original grant was of continued payment of ground rent-State has not chosen to take possession of properties, in exercise of their professed or alleged rights-They having resorted to provisions of Land Acquisition Act-Whether State could completely deny right and interests of claimants so as to deprive them of their claims of compensation-(No)-Actual market value determined was that of acquired properties as a whole-Entire compensation shall be distributed among the claimants in the ratio of 75 and the State in ratio of 25 -Claimants are not bound to pay anything further even by way of capitalization of ground rent payable.
       Held : The relevant records and documents apart, though the dealings, conduct and claims as to their respective status, inter se relationship vis-a-vis the properties in question and their rights and interests therein seem to present varying, discordant and disorientated picture on account of a disorganised handling of such matters at different stages and points of time, certain vitally relevant aspects necessary for adjudication of the disputes raised in these appeals admits of no serious controversies or disputes. To notice some such of them are - the grant made under a document dated 24-12-1862 does not indicate that what was granted was a lease but one in return for the lump sum paid and subject to the continued payment initially of ground rent in relation to a portion and rent for the other and thereafter uniformily for all lands the payment of ground rent as revised, priodically. Since, it was not a lease as such, no duration of time or period seems to have been indicated and there appears to be a conspicuous omission also of any condition or clause enabling re-entry by resumption for one or other reason. Despite all such, for reasons beyond comprehension, the said properties along with certain other items of garden land in respect of which leases seem to have been obtained on different occasions, appear to have been shown as having been entrusted to the management of Mahanagar Palika, which got it entered as part of the Nazul Lands in the relevant register maintained, with no indication as to any time limit. The claim of the heirs of Rana as well as their successors-in-interest including the claimants appears from all such dealings to be only that of a permanent lessee, subject only to the obligation to pay the ground rent assessed, and as revised periodically. Then comes, the draft lease said to have been signed by an heir and successor-in-interest of the original grantee, which, though provide for 30 years lease, contains a clause for periodical renewal upto 90 a total of years. The fact that the suits for recovery of ground rent being decreed but, at the same time, one such filed later for eviction also by the Government though did not meet with success and came to be dismissed with no further action thereon by the State also are matters of record. The further fact remains that, the State has not chosen to take possession of the properties, in exercise of their professed or alleged rights, apparently aware of their difficulties as well and instead have chosen to have resort to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and took possession in exercise of those powers of acquisition. Thus, the questions now put in issue by the parties are: (a) whether the State could completely deny the rights and interests of the claimants so as to deprive them of their claims for compensation; (b) what are the respective interests of the parties: State on one hand and the claimants on the other in the properties acquired; and (c) how their respective interests have to be valued and whether the manner of determination undertaken by the authority and courts below are correct or that it requires interference in these appeals. (Para 18)
       Though as a matter of principle of law, the Government while invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring a land in which the Government also had some or other of interest, need not go for acquiring their interest as well and what is permissible as well as obligated for acquisition is only of such of the private interest of third parties other than that of the Government, the Land Acquisition Officer in this case has chosen to, while determining the market value, indisputably proceed to determine for the whole of it and only as a consequence thereof has chosen to apportion compensation between the Government and the claimants at the rate of 10 annas : 6 annas respectively. Though the Reference Court, during the course of its judgment, adverts to the principles relating to the need or desirability of acquiring only private parties other than that of the Government under the Land Acquisition Act has ultimately chosen to adopt only the standard and rate of market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. Consequently, niceties of language apart and the purported endeavour attempted to have been made by the Referance Court, we are constrained to hold that the actual market value determined was that of the acquired properties as a whole and consequently the need for apportionment, inevitably arise. (Para 20)
       The High Court has committed a patent error of law and misdirected itself in determining the respective rights of the claimants/appellants on the one hand and the Government on the other in the lands in question as well as in restoring the ratio of apportionment made by the Land Acquisition Officer, without any objective consideration of the relevant principles in their proper perspective. Consequently, we set aside the same. Resultantly, the appeal shall stand allowed with the following consequences: That the entire compensation awarded shall be distributed among the claimants in the ratio of 75 and the State in the ratio of 25 . (Paras 22 & 23)

JUDGMENT

D. Raju, J.-The above appeals, arising out of a common judgment dated 8-2-1995 of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal Nos. 74 to 80 of 1982, involving identical questions of law and similar facts, are dealt with together.

2. The immovable properties, land and buildings in question, which are the subject-matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1864 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), forming part of large extent were granted by Competent Authority on behalf of the Government of North Western Provinces of British India by a deed dated 24-12-1862 subject only to the conditions stipulated therein, which included, apart from the payment of the lump sum amount specified therein, the rent/ground rent up to 31-7-1869 the periodical payment of on and from 31st July 1869 revised annual ground rent that may be fixed by the Revenue Collector of Allahabad District, in favour of one Mr. Walter Edmond Davis, Indigo Planter of Bengal. The same was sold to and purchased from the said grantee by the Right Reverend Doctor Avastasins Hartmann of the Roman Catholic Mission Lord Bishop and Vicor Apostolic of Patna under a registered sale deed dated 7-1-1863 whose successor-in-office Right Reverend Doctor Pesci sold the properties more fully described in and under a sale deed dated 13-5-1886, in favour of General Puddum Jung Bahadur Rana, who hailed from Nepal but settled in Nynetal, the great grand father of Rana Pratap Jung Bahadur, Rana Pradyuman Jung Bahadur and Rana Rutasan Jung Bahadur. It is also claimed that Rana Paddum Jung Bahadur also took, in addition to these properties, on lease additional extent of lands measuring about 68 Bighas and 7 Biswas on different dates. It is further claimed that in the year 1910 the management of the lands in question was entrusted to the Municipal Board of Allahabad, subsequently came to be renamed as Nagar Mahapalika of Allahabad and the said body had these properties recorded in the name of the descendants of Rana Padam Jung Bahadur in the Property Register of the Nazul section.

3. While matters stood thus, in the year 1941 the State of U.P. seems to have instituted proceedings to recover the arrears of ground rent due from the heirs of the owners and a suit again seems to have been filed in the year 1959 also for the same purpose admitting the relationship between parties, the Government of U.P. and the heirs of Late Rana to be Lessor and Lessee. The authorities of the State seem to have started asserting in some form or other in correspondence as well as some of these litigations that the heirs of Rana had only a limited leasehold interest and that the period of such leasehold interest also expired by efflux of time and in the absence of renewal thereafter, the heirs of Rana were said to be in possession of the leasehold properties only as a tenant holding over and not as a tenant under a perpetual lease. In the year 1970, the State appears to have filed a suit seeking for recovery of the arrears of ground rent and for eviction and when the claim of the State was rejected at the appellate stage the State does not appear to have pursued the matter further. It is in the backlog of such claims and counter claims the present acquisition proceedings seem to have been initiated to acquire portions of the land on 23-10-1976. The stand of the State during the award proceedings and thereafter even before a Reference Court initially was one admitting the interest of the appellants and their predecessor-in-title, but by the time the Reference Court could decide the matters finally, the State appears to have filed additional written statements disputing the rights of the appellants and their predecessor-in-interest in toto by asserting that the term of lease of Rana family expired and, therefore, they had no interest, title or right in the lands in question and that the lands have already vested absolutely with the State of U.P. and, therefore, the transferees from t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2003 Supreme(SC) 1215

Cases Referred (9)

Judicial Analysis