SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 455

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Mathura Prosad Rajgharia and others Appellants
Versus
State of W.B., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2194 of 1966, D/-27-10-1970.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M C. Chagla, Senior Advocate (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate with him), for Appellants; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S. C. Majumdar, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 , 23 (2) and 18 - Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 - Section 69 and 77A - Land Acquisition - Enhanced compensation - Appellants applied for a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act as amended by Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 - Reference was heard by Calcutta Improvement Tribunal - Tribunal enhanced amount of compensation by Rs. 2,54,2401- and 15 % solatium - Appellants and State of West Bengal appealed to High Court of Calcutta - Appeal filed by appellants was dismissed and appeal of State was partly allowed - High Court awarded to appellants as compensation and statutory solatium of 15% in addition thereto - Against award made by High Court, this appeal has been preferred by appellants, with certificate granted by High Court - Land of appellants was notified for acquisition to ensure improved facilities in respect of area covered by Improvement Scheme No. VI (Manicktola) of Calcutta Improvement Trust - Whether within meaning of R. 9 of Schedule to Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, disposition of land at date of publication of declaration - Held, Even if an order made by Collector valuing land with consent of acquiring authority and claimant may not strictly be regarded as an award made on a consideration of all relevant materials, agreement formally reached between acquiring authority and claimant agreeing to a certain amount to be paid as compensation for land acquired is good evidence of market value of land - On view taken by Court, without expressing any opinion on question whether within meaning of R. 9 of Schedule to Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, disposition of land at date of publication of declaration relating thereto under S. 6 of Land Acquisition Act justifies Court in taking into account potentialities of land - Order passed by High Court is set aside and order of Tribunal restored - Appellants will be entitled to their costs in this Court - Order of costs passed by High Court directing each party to bear its own costs is maintained - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

SHAH, J. - An area of land known as "premises No. 104". Narkeldanga Main Road, in the town of Calcutta admeasuring 39 bighas and 19 cottahs (63980 sq. yards) was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by a notification published on August 1, 1946. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on June 12, 1947. The land was situated at the junction of Narkeldanga Main Road and Kankurgachi Road and had a frontage on the Narkeldanga Main Road of 675 feet and on the Kankurgachi Road of 629 feet.

2. Before the Collector the appellants claimed Rs. 27,00,000/- as compensation for the land. The Collector by his award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act awarded Rs. 10,38,700/- as compensation for the land, and Rs. 800/- for trees. The amount of compensation awarded (inclusive of the statutory solatium of 15% under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act) was Rs. 11,95,425/-.

3. The appellants applied for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. The reference was heard by the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. The Tribunal enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs. 2,54,2401- and 15 % solatium.

4. The appellants and the State of West Bengal appealed to the High Court of Calcutta. The appeal filed by appellants was dismissed and the appeal of the State was partly allowed. The High Court awarded to the appellants Rs. 11,59,430/- as compensation and statutory solatium of 15% in addition thereto. Against the award made by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants, with certificate granted by the High Court.

5. Compensation for the land was determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as modified by the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. By the Calcutta Improvement Act, certain modifications are made in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 69 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, provides:

"The Board (Improvement Trust Board) may, with the previous sanction of the State Government acquire land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for carrying out any of the purposes of this Act"

Section 70 provides:

"A Tribunal shall be constituted, as provided in Section 72, for the purpose of performing the functions of the Court in reference to the acquisition of land for the Board under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894"

Section 71 provides:

"For the purpose of acquiring land under the said Act for the Board, -

(a) The Tribunal shall (except for the purposes of Section 54 of that Act) be deemed to be the Court, and the President of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the Judge, under the said Act;

(b) the said Act shall be subject to the further modifications indicated in the Schedule;

(c) x x x x x x

(d) the award of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the award of the Court under the said Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and shall, subject to the provisions of Section 77-A, be final".

Section 72 provides for the constitution of a Tribunal. The Tribunal consists of the President and two assessors. The section further provides to the qualifications of the President and the two assessors. Section 77-A provides:

"An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an award under this Chapter (Chapter IV), in any of the following cases, namely: -

(a) x x x x x x

(b) Where the decision is that of the Tribunal, and: -

(i) the President of the Tribunal grants a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal, or

(ii) the High Court grants special leave to appeal:

Provided x x x x

(2) An appeal under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall only lie on (one or more of) the following grounds namely -

(i) the decision being contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law

(ii) the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law;

(iii) a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the said Act which may possibly have produced error or defect in the d































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top