Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. C. Shrivastava and S. P. Bhargava, JJ.
HITKARINI SABHA - Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF THE CITY - Respondents
Misc. First Appeal 12 Of 1958
Decided On : 09/28/1960
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - APPORTIONMENT BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT - LEASE DEED EXECUTED BY ADMINISTRATOR - VALIDITY - RENEWAL CLAUSE - UNCERTAINTY - EFFECT - RATIO OF APPORTIONMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government acquired plots of land for constructing a Home Science College. The Collector fixed the compensation for the vacant land and valued the structures. The Hitkarini Sabha, which claimed the entire compensation, and the Corporation of the City of Jabalpur, which claimed a share, filed appeals against the order of the Additional District Judge, who had apportioned the compensation equally between them.
Finding of the Court:
1. The lease deed executed by the Administrator was ineffective to convey leasehold interests to the Hitkarini Sabha due to lack of power in the Administrator to effect the transfer. 2. The acceptance of rent by the Municipal Committee and the grant of permission to construct buildings created a tenancy by necessary implication. 3. The tenancy continued on the terms contained in the lease deed, which was admissible in evidence despite being unregistered. 4. The renewal clause in the lease deed was void for uncertainty as it left all terms and conditions to the agreement of the parties. 5. The compensation should be apportioned between the Sabha and the Corporation in the ratio of 1038: 962, reflecting their respective interests in the land acquired. 6. Interest at 6% should be paid on the excess amount determined by the Court over the amount granted by the Collector from the date of possession to the date of payment or deposit in Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the lease deed executed by the Administrator was valid. 2. Whether the tenancy continued on the terms contained in the lease deed. 3. Whether the renewal clause in the lease deed was valid. 4. How the compensation should be apportioned between the Sabha and the Corporation. 5. Whether interest should be paid on the excess amount determined by the Court over the amount granted by the Collector.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Administrator lacked the power to transfer the lands, rendering the lease deed ineffective. 2. The acceptance of rent and the grant of permission to construct buildings by the Municipal Committee created a tenancy by necessary implication. 3. The renewal clause was void for uncertainty as it left all terms and conditions to the agreement of the parties, which is unenforceable under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act. 4. The compensation should be apportioned between the Sabha and the Corporation in the ratio of 1038: 962, reflecting their respective interests in the land acquired. 5. Interest at 6% should be paid on the excess amount determined by the Court over the amount granted by the Collector from the date of possession to the date of payment or deposit in Court, as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with modifications. The compensation was apportioned between the Sabha and the Corporation in the ratio of 1038: 962, and interest at 6% was awarded on the excess amount determined by the Court over the amount granted by the Collector.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the Hitkarini Sabha, Jabalpur, against the order of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 14-9-1957, on a reference made by the Collector, Jabalpur, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Another appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 1958) arising out of the same proceedings has been filed by the Corporation of the City of Jabalpur. Both these appeals are disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) PLOTS Nos. 670, 671 and 735, situate in Madan Mahal Extension Area, Jabalpur, were acquired by the State Government under the Act for constructing the Home Science College. Plots Nos. 670 and 671 were partly occupied by structures. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2-3-1955 with respect to the vacant plot. Along with this notification, another notification under Section 17 (4) was also issued stating that the site was urgently needed and therefore the provisions of Section 5-A were dispensed with. . Thereafter, a notification under Section 6 was issued with respect to this plot. Similarly, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2-3-1955 with respect to the portions on which the structures stood and objections were invited under Section 5-A. The objection filed by the Hitkarini Sabha was rejected and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19-71955. The sites with the structures were finally acquired by the State Government. The Collector fixed the compensation for the vacant land at -/8/- per sq. ft. and valued the structures. The Collector gave the compensation with respect to plot No. 670 wholly to the Hitkarini Sabha. Both the parties asked for a reference to be made under Section 18 of the Act and the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, decided the reference by the order which is under appeal. The learned Judge raised the compensation for the vacant area to -/10/- per sq. ft. and enhanced the value of the structures Slightly. The compensation with reference to plot No. 670 was apportioned between the two appellants equally.
( 3 ) BOTH the appellants challenged the compensation awarded as inadequate. They claimed that the Site should have been valued at Rs. 1/- per sq. ft. The Hitkarini Sabha, in addition, requested that the value of the buildings and the playground constructed both should be raised. Another dispute which arises between the appellants inter se is about the apportionment of the compensation money--each claiming the whole of it.
( 4 ) WE will first consider the question whether the learned Additional District Judge has valued the lands adequately. Before we do that we dispose of a preliminary objection which has been taken by the appellants. They have pointed out that Section 17 (4) of the Act has no application to the present case, as the lands were not 'waste' or 'arable' and therefore the acquisition itself is void. We have already mentioned that two separate notifications under Section 4 with respect to the site built upon and the vacant site were issued. There is no substance in the objection that the area built upon could not be acquired under Section 17 (4) of the Act, as this has not actually been done. It was open to the State Government to divide the plots in this manner and the contention that the whole plot should have been dealt with as a plot occupied by structures is without any merit
( 5 ) FURTHER, We may observe that the scope of an appeal from a decision on a reference under Section 18 of the Act is very limited, just as the scope of the reference itself is limited. Under Section 18, the reference is made only on the four points indicated therein. The validity of the order of acquisition or want of jurisdiction in making the order is not a matter on which the Additional District Judge could adjudicate. The powers of an appellate Court are restricted to the same powers which the original Court exercises, and therefore we are also not entitled t
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
