The court emphasized the right of interested persons to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation and other benefits, particularly when the Award has not been accepted.

JUDGMENT :

KURIAN, J.:

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 01.11.2010 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No. 2535 of 2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

3. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act’) was issued at the instance of the State of Himachal Pradesh–Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of widening of Theog Kotkhai-Hatkoti road (T.K.H.) on 13.06.2008. Being a time bound project, having found that acquisition proceedings might take a long time, the respondents proposed settlement of the compensation on negotiations and acquired the land accordingly. It appears that in respect of the land of the appellant, a Negotiated Award dated 11.09.2008 was passed wherein it was stated that the land value had been fixed on negotiations and the appellant shall not be entitled for seeking any enhancement of the market value under Section 18 of the Act. It was also specifically stated in the said Negotiated Award that “… But they are entitled for the market value for the structures and trees (if any) separately, as per the market value which will be determined by the expert agencies in due course of time at the time of announcement of Supplementary Award along with the market value of the land, which will be notified by the government under Section 4(1) of the Act if required to be acquired at a later stage. …”

4. Thereafter, according to respondents, a supplementary Negotiated Award was passed on 18.12.2009, in continuation of the Negotiated Award dated 11.09.2009 in respect of the land. It is stated therein that, as per the valuation report provided by the Superintending Engineer (PWD) and the Deputy Director (Horticulture), total value of the building and trees was fixed at Rs.37,34,264/-, which according to the respondents and as stated in the Negotiated Award, “this valuation was negotiated as full and final rates and no statutory benefits under the Act will be admissible over and above.” However, it is also stated in the said Award that “this award was enhanced in absentia, therefore, the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act be issued to interest holders immediately”.

5. It is the case of the appellant that the said Negotiated Supplementary Award dated 18.12.2009 is not a negotiated one and the rates have been fixed unilaterally. That it is not negotiated is evident from the Award itself wherein it is stated that the rates have been fixed as per the report of the Superintending Engineer (PWD) and Deputy Director (Horticulture) and still further that the Award has been so passed in absentia, it was specifically stated in the Supplementary Award that notice under Section 12(2) would be issued.

6. The High Court, in the impugned judgment took the view that the writ petitioner, having accepted the land value on negotiated settlement, was not justified in seeking any statutory benefits. However, it was noted at paragraph 3 of the judgment that:

“3. As far as the payment compensation for structures and trees is concerned, it is obvious that the settlement was only with regard to the value of the land and not with regard to the structure and trees and, therefore, supplementary award in this regard was passed.”

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, submits that the Negotiated Supplementary Award is only in continuation of the original Award for land, and therefore, Supplementary Negotiated Award should be read as part of the Award on land value. It is also contended that having accepted the compensation, there is no justification in turning down and seeking further benefits.

8. We are unable to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the State. One thing to be noticed is that the appellant–writ petitioner had not accepted the Award; if so, she would not have pursued the inadequacy of compensation before the High Court in the writ p