Administrator General Of W. B. vs Collector, Varanasi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1988 Supreme(SC) 152

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. NATARAJAN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Administrator Genl. of West Bengal, Appellant
Versus
Collector, Varanasi, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 877 of 1974,
D/-16-2-1988.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Mr. G. S. Chatterjee and Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. Prithvi Raj, Sr. Advocate and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Advocate with him, for Respondent.

Advocates:
BHATTACHARJI, D.N.MUKHERJI, G.S.CHATTERJEE, Prithvi Raj, SHOBHA DIXIT

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 18, 23(l) – Enhancement of compensation – Special leave, arises out of and is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal affirming the Award and Decree of the lst Addl. District Judge, Varanasi, made in a Reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Property known as "Gopal Lal Villa" a sprawling 60 year old building of about 25000 square feet of plinth-area comprising of 35 rooms, halls and other appurtenances, its large 23.66 acre grounds with 431 fruit and 13 Timber trees; 12 Bamboo-clumps, situated on the outskirts of the City of Varanasi, originally part of the estate of Raja P. N. Tagore, and now vesting in the Administrator General, West Bengal, was acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification, published in the Gazette for the purposes of the education department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh –Held, on the contrary, submitted that these changes in the law, brought in by the amended provisions are presumptively prospective except to the extent that they are made expressly or by compelling implication retrospective in the extension of their benefits. Learned Counsel said that application of these provisions even to pending proceedings envisages a principle of retro-active application which must expressly be enabled by the statute or is to be inferred as an inevitable implication – Shri Mukharjee relied upon certain observations of this Court in the case of Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh – There are some observations of the report which tend to lend support to Shri Mukharjee. But the matter is biding decision at the hands of a larger bench – In the circumstances, learned counsel on both sides submitted that the appeal be disposed of on the other points leaving it open to the appellant to agitate Contention(d) after a final pronouncement in Bhag Singhs case, if in the light of the said judgment, this claim or any part of it survives – Court accept this submission and reserve liberty to the appellant accordingly – Shri Mukharjee sought to raise another point concerning compensation to be awarded for change of residence under Clause fifthly in S. 23(l); but as this point does not appear to have been raised and urged before the High Court, we think, we should not permit the appellant to reagitate this question over again in this court. It is also to be observed that no specific ground is taken in this behalf in this appeal either –Appeal partly allowed.

Judgment

VENKATACHALIAH, J. - This appeal, for enhancement of compensation, by special leave, arises out of and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th November, 1971 of the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal No. 171 of 1966 affirming the Award and Decree dated 13-12-1965 of the lst Addl. District Judge, Varanasi, made in a Reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

Property known as "Gopal Lal Villa" a sprawling 60 year old building of about 25000 square feet of plinth-area comprising of 35 rooms, halls and other appurtenances, its large 23.66 acre grounds with 431 fruit and 13 Timber trees; 12 Bamboo-clumps, situated on the outskirts of the City of Varanasi, originally part of the estate of Raja P. N. Tagore, and now vesting in the Administrator General, West Bengal, was acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification, published in the Gazette, dated, 4-7-1959 for the purposes of the education department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

2. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, Appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 8,00,580/- (at Rs. 352 per decimal) for the land; Rs. 3,50,000 for the building and structures; Rs. 41,010/- for the tree growth; and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for change of residence.

The Land Acquisition Officer, however, by his Award dated 4-11-1961 under S. 11 of the Act determined the market-value of the land at Rs. 3,31,340/- valuing it Rs. 140/- per decimal (or Rs. 14000/- per acre); of the building and structures at Rs. 57,660/- and of the tree-growth at Rs. 355.83. Appellant, not having accepted the offer contained in the award, sought for a reference under S. 18 of the Act to the Civil Court in proceedings pursuant to which the District Court enhanced the market-value of the land to Rs. 4,73,200/, (from Rs. 140 to Rs. 200/- per decimal) leaving the valuation of the building and the tree-growth undisturbed. The High Court has affirmed the Award, dismissing appellants claim for further enhancement before it.

3. We have heard Shri D. N. Mukherjee, learned counsel in support of the appeal and Shri Prithviraj, learned Senior-Advocate for the respondent. We have been taken through the judgment under appeal and the evidence on record.

On the contentions urged at the hearing, the following points fall for consideration :

(a) Whether the estimate of the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 200/- per decimal is unreasonably low and is arrived at ignoring the evidence on record and settled principles of valuation?

(b) Whether the valuation of the buildings and structures at a mere Rs. 57,660/- calls for an upward revision?

(d) Whether appellant is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 23(2) of the Act as introduced by the U.P. Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1972 providing for solatium and, further, to higher rates of solatium and interest under the Central Amending Act (Act No. 68 of 1984) on the ground that proceedings were pending in appeal before this court on the dates these amendments came into force?

4. Re : Contention (a)

The acquired land had the potentiality for building purposes. Learned District Judge found that:

".......The Land Acquisition Officer himself realised this fact and has observed that "the land under acquisition is situated within the Corporation limits in Mohalla Orderly Bazar, a thickly populated locality and is near to Kutchery. It has, therefore, a potential value as building site." I may add here that though the acquired land is at a distance of about 3 to 3-1/2 miles from the main markets of Varanasi City, yet every thing of daily need and of day to day utility is available in the market which exists in the locality of the acquired land. It may also be added that the land adjacent to the west of the acquired land konwn as Tagore Nagar formerly formed part of this Gopal Lal Villa and both were covered by one boundary. The land of Tagore Nagar has been divided into

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1988 Supreme(SC) 152

Cases Referred (7)