Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 1290
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan & Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, J.
The Deputy Director land Acquisition - Appellant
Versus
Malia Atchinaidu & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6497-6500 of 1994
Civil Appeal No. 5276 of 2006
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16443 of 1994
Decided on 12.12.2006
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. Sundaravardhan , Senior Advocate, Mr. Manoj Saxena, Mr. Rajnish Kun Singh, Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr. T.V. George Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari and Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the compensation for land and trees cannot be determined separately under the Land Acquisition Act.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Valuation of Trees - Land Acquisition Act - Section 152 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquisition of agricultural land with trees under the Land Acquisition Act. The dispute arose over the valuation of the land and trees, and the number of trees on the acquired land. The claimants sought correction of the decree under Section 152 CPC, which was allowed by the High Court. The State appealed against the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the High Court erred in allowing the correction of the decree and in enhancing the compensation for the trees. It held that the compensation for land and trees cannot be determined separately and that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the amendment of the decree. The Court set aside the High Court's order and affirmed the compensation for the land based on a registered sale deed.
Issues: The substantial questions of law considered by the Court included the correction of the decree under Section 152 CPC, the jurisdiction of the Single Judge in entertaining the revision, the enhancement of compensation by the Division Bench, and the separate valuation of land and trees.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the compensation for land and trees cannot be determined separately, and the High Court erred in allowing the correction of the decree and in enhancing the compensation for the trees. It also affirmed the compensation for the land based on a registered sale deed.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the High Court's order, affirmed the compensation for the land, and directed the respondents to pay the balance compensation and other amounts due to the claimants within three months.
JUDGMENT
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 16443 of 1994.
2. The appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 64976500 of 1994 is the Deputy Director Land Acquisition and the respondents are Malia Atchinaidu and Ors. These appeals were preferred against the orders dated 31.12.1993 and 18.01.1994 in CRP No. 363 of 1992 and judgment and order dated 11.03.1994 in AS No. 147 of 1994 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. SLP No. 16443 of 1994 was filed by the respondents in CA Nos.6497 -6500 of 1994 against the judgment and order passed in AS No. 19 of 1992 dated 11.03.1994.
3. The facts herein are that, on 07.03.1982, an extent of Ac. 19.87 cents of dry land in Sy. Nos. 3/1 to 3/42 of Pisinikada Village, in the outskirts of Anakapalli Town, was acquired under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the provision of house sites for the weaker sections. Urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act was invoked and a draft declaration under Section 6 (1) was also published simultaneously on the same date.
4. On 31.07.1982, the Land Acquisition Officer and Social Welfare Officer (Land Acquisition) issued notice under Section 9(1) of the Act directing that all the matters to be posted on 24.08.1982 for conducting the award enquiry. On 24.08.1982 and 03.09.1982, award enquiry was conducted.
5. The Land Acquisition Officer on 03.02.1983, gave an award granting compensation of RS.11,500/- per acre to the respondents. The Land Acquisition Officer also valued certain Palmyrah trees at Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. 10/- for big Palmyrah tree, Rs. 5/- for small Palmyrah tree and Rs. 50/- for cashew trees.) There were 176 Palmyrah trees and 7 cashew trees. On 24.03.1983, possession of the said land was taken.
6. The respondents were, however, not happy with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and it was numbered O.P. No. 21/87.
7. On 27.04.1991, the Sub-Judge, Anakapalli passed an order whereby the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs. 55,000/- per acre. The compensation with regard to the palmyrah trees was enhanced to Rs. 100/- for a big tree and Rs. 50/- for a small tree and Rs. 200/- for a cashew tree. On 29.07.1991, however, the respondents filed I.A. No. 70/91 in O.P.No. 21/87 contending that there were 10,000 big palmyrah trees and 4,500 small palmyrah trees and that the order of the Sub-judge contained a typographical error.
8. The Sub-judge in his order dated 28.09.1991, rejected the application of the respondents.
9. Aggrieved by the order of the Sub-judge, the respondents approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of Civil Revision Petition No. 363/92 and filed an appeal in the High Court which was numbered A.S No. 19/1992.
10. On 31.12.1993, the Single Judge allowed the revision and directed that the order of the Sub-judge be amended. On the request of the Govt. Pleader on 18.01.1994, the matter was heard again. However, the Single Judge confirmed the order passed on 31.12.1993. An appeal was preferred by the appellants in the High Court against this order of the Single Judge which was numbered A.S. No. 147/1994.
11. On 11.03.1994, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents numbered 19/1992 and dismissed the appeal of the appellants and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre relying on exhibit A-11, a registered sale deed.
12. It is against this decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 11.03.1994 the appellants are before this court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 6497-6500/1994 and the respondents have also approached this Court by way of SLP (C) NO.16443/1994.
13. We heard learned senior counsel Mr. Sundaravardhan assisted by Mr. Manoj Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari and Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
14. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sundaravardhan submitted on facts th
