Back
2008 Supreme(SC) 2067
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.
K.S.E.B. - Appellant
Versus
Lonappan and another - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5880 of 2008
Decided on : 26-09-2008
Courts cannot direct payment of compensation exceeding the amount prayed for in the claim applications. Commissioner's report must be adequately substantiated.
Headnote:
Compensation - Land Acquisition - Interpretation of Commissioner's report and limitation of compensation claim
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the lower courts erred in directing payment of additional compensation to the respondents for the acquisition of coconut and nutmeg trees, exceeding the amount claimed by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Commissioner's report was not adequately substantiated and that the lower courts had erred in directing payment of compensation exceeding the amount prayed for in the claim applications.
Issues: Interpretation of Commissioner's report, limitation of compensation claim
Ratio Decidendi: In cases of dispute over the amount of claim, the courts cannot direct payment of compensation exceeding the amount prayed for in the claim applications. The Commissioner's report must be adequately substantiated.
Final Decision: The court modified the lower courts' orders and allowed compensation for the amounts claimed by the respondents, i.e. Rs. 45,000 for coconut trees and Rs. 17,000 for nutmeg trees. The appeal was allowed to this extent with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge, North Paravur, as also the High Court committed a serious error in directing payment of additional amount of compensation to the Respondents herein, i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,45,817 towards the price of the coconut trees and a sum of Rs. 1,17,925 for the nutmeg trees while the claim therefor was limited to Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 17,000 respectively.
3. The learned Additional District Judge and the High Court relied upon the report of the Commissioner, but it appears that the learned Additional District Judge in his judgment stated:
"The Commissioner without measuring out the property, has come to the conclusion that 93 cents of property is under the line, I do not know how he arrived that magic figure. The Petitioner has not made any effort to substantiate the same. Hence, the claim regarding depreciation of land value is disallowed.
It is not in dispute that the Commissioner was appointed by the learned Additional District Judge. It, however, appears that an objection to the report of the Commissioner was filed. We would assume that the Commissioner was not summoned by the Appellant for his examination as is provided under Order 26, Rule 10, Sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, but in a case where a dispute has been raised in regard to the amount of claim, the learned Commissioner or for that matter the Courts could not have directed payment of compensation to the claimants over and above the amount prayed for in their claim applications.
For the reasons aforementioned, the order of the Additional District Judge as also the High Court is modified to the extent that in stead and place of the awarded sums of compensation, the Respondents shall be allowed compensation for sums of Rs. 45,000 and Rs. 17,000 only. The amounts awarded on other heads shall, however, remain unaltered.
4. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
