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

1987 Supreme(SC) 809

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranganath Misra : S.Ranganathan
Om Parkash
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 174 , 602-05 of 1982
Date of Decision : 10/29/87

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act - Section 4 – Claim of compensation – Acquisition of land – Condo nation of delay - Entire compensation fixed was not offered appellants did not accept part payment of compensation and filed writ petitions before High court challenging proceedings on several grounds including delay - Plea of delay was rejected by High court on ground that writ petitions suffered from lochs and approached court belatedly - That is how these appeals have crone to this court by special leave - It is not disputed that award has been made – Held, Court therefore require respondent-authorities to deposit money with Land Acquisition Officer within two weeks hence for disbursement in terms of the award - Land Acquisition Officer shall disburse amount within two weeks thereafter - As Court have already stated references are pending for Fixing of appropriate market value - Counsel for respondent have agreed that provisions of amending Act shall apply and escalated rates provided therein would be available rare court shall take into account submissions that compensation has been assessed at rate per sq yd whereas market value is higher - Parties will be free to lead evidence in support of their claim based upon potential value – Court are sure that court would give reasonable opportunity to parties to lead evidence in support of their respective stands matter appears to have been pending for a long time court direct court to dispose of references within a total period of four months from today - Appeals are disposed of

(1) THESE appeals are by claimants whose lands hve been included in a Development Scheme bythe Patiala Improvement Trust underthe Punjab Town Improvement Act of 1922.the publication under S. 36 ofthe Act corresponding to S. 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, was made on 14/01/1974. Action corresponding to S. 6 ofthe Land Acquisition Act was taken in December 1976 andthe award was made in July 1978. Asthe entire compensation fixed was not offered,the appellants did not accept part payment ofthe compensation and filed writ ptitions beforethe High court challengingthe proceedings on several grounds including delay.the plea of delay was rejected bythe High court onthe ground thatthe writ ptitions suffered from lches and approachedthe court belatediy. That is how thse appeals hve corne to this court by spcial leave.

(2) LT is not disputed thatthe award has been made on 29/07/1978. lt is aiso not in dispute that several rfrences hve been made for fixing th proper market value ofthe property and are pending disposai. In the mean time the Land Acquisition Act has been amended in 1984 and provision for escalation of rates of interest and solatium has been made. There is no dispute that forthe acquisition underthe Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922,the procdure laid down underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies.

(3) THE entire compensation money as per award has not been paid. Counsel forthe Trust, respondent 2, agres that money is available now and can be paid within any period as we direct. We, therefore, require th respondent-authorities to depositthe money withthe Land Acquisition Officer within two weeks hence for disbursement in terms of the award.the Land Acquisition Officer shall disbursethe amount within two weeks thereafter.

(4) AS we hve aiready stated references are pending for Fixing of the appropriate market value. Counsel forthe respondent hve agreed that th provisions ofthe amending Act shall apply and escalated rates provided therein would be available.the rfre court shall take into accountthe submissions that compensation has been assessed atthe rate of Rs. 6.00 and Rs. 8.00 per sq. yd. whereas market value is higher.the parties will be free to leadevidence in support of their daim based upon potential value. We are sure that court would give reasonable opportunity to th parties to leadevidence in support of their respective stands.the matter appears to hve been pending for a long time; we directthe court to dispose ofthe rfrences within a total period of four months from today. Ail intrim orders stand vacated.the appeals are disposed of.

(5) NO costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top