M/s. Greater Delhi Planners Ltd. Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.218 of 1992
Petitioner: M/s. Greater Delhi Planners Ltd.
Respondent: The State of Haryana & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.218 of 1992
Judges: KULDIP SINGH & N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 17, 1993
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Section 4, 12 and 18 – Market value – Award dated 18.3.1966 of the Collector related to Narmot land and as regards the award for Chahi and Ghair Mumkin land, the same was deferred and the matter was referred to Dy. Collector for report – Award dated 18.3.1966 held not complete and final, and the subsequent award dated 30.7.1966, which specifically superseded the earlier award, was the final award – Appeal dismissed.
Cases Reffered:
1. Kashi Parshad v. Notified Area, Mahoba, AIR 1932 Allahabad 598. (Para 4)
2. British India Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India, ILR Cal. 230. (Para 4)
2. British India Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India, ILR Cal. 230. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
KULDIP SINGH, J. :
1. This appeal has arisen from the land acquisition proceedings. By a notification dated June 3, 1961 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (the Act) agricultural land belonging to the appellant was sought to be acquired for the public purpose indicated therein. The Collector assessed the market value of the land at the varying rates based on the quality of the land. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act the learned District Judge awarded the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.4600/- per acre. The regular first appeal against the award of the learned District Judge was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated July 31, 1979. This appeal by way of special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court.
2. The order of this Court dated January 22, 1982 granting special leave is as under:-
“Special Leave to Appeal is granted confined to the question that High Court omitted to consider the significance of the earlier award made by the Collector and that in relying on the earlier award the petitioner/appellant was obliged to challenge the final award made on July 30, 1966.”
We may briefly notice the facts necessary to examine the limited question on which the leave was granted by this Court. The Land Acquisition Collector announced partial award on March 18, 1966. The operative part of the award is as under:-
“Deputy Commissioner has supplied the rate of Rs.7310/- per acre for the Barani Land in this village which seems to be fair and reasonable and after careful consideration of actual sales of Barani Lands and all other factors such as quality of soil and situation of land I give my award of Narmot (Oklan Barani) land as Rs.7310/ per acre. As regards Chahi land the D.C. has supplied the rate of Rs.4600/- per acre which is much less than actual market rates and usually the rates of chahi land and Nehri lands are more than those of Barani lands. So the Deputy Commissioner’s rate for Chahi land is incorrect and is less than actual market rate. As regards Ghair Mumkin land also there is no specific soil of land of this class from which its exact market price may be otherwise ascertained. So, I give my award for Barani land Rs.7310/- per acre and the award for Chahi and Ghair Mumkin land will be given on receipt of revised rates from Deputy Commissioner to whom the reference under para 43 of S.O. 28 (of For) 5 is being made. The land owners are at no loss in this case as they are not required to pay any stamp duty etc. Moreover, they are to receive 15% compulsory acquisition charges also.”
3. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector gave final award dated July 30, 1966. The operative part of the award is as under:-
“This award will be in supersession of award No.33-G dated 18.3.66 given by my predecessor. That award was given only for Ghair Mumkin land while the area acquired consists of Chahi Nirmot and Banjar Qadim land also. That award was not legal according to the L.A. Act so the present award should read in supersession of the above award given by my predecessor.
MARKET VALUE. Some of the land owners and interested persons namely Shri Charan Mohan Lal and others appeared before my predecessor on 18.3.66. They demanded Rs.30,000/- per acre for Chahi land, but they did not produce any evidence to support their demand. I have gone through the file and I find as under.
The Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon has supplied the rate of Rs.4611/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.7310/- per acre for Nirmot land and No. rate for Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin Lands. The N.T.L.A. Rohtak and the Zilladar L.A. have both proposed Rs.4600/- per acre for Chahi, Rs.2200/- per acre for Nirmot, Rs.400/- per acre for Banjar Qadim and Rs.200/- per acre for Ghair Mumkin.
As regards Chahi land I find that the rate proposed by the D.O.N.T.L.A. and the Zilladar are practically the same. I therefore fix my award at the rate of Rs.4600/- per acre for Chahi land. Nirmot class of land is a superior Barani land. Therefore the price of Nirmot land cannot exceed the price of Chahi Land. The high rate of Nirmot land applied by the Deputy Commissioner are not proper. I am of the opinion that the price of Nirmot land is generally 1/2 price of Chahi land. In my opinion the joint proposal by the N.T.L.A. and the Zilladar L.A. regarding price of Nirmot land should be accepted. I therefore fix my award at Rs.2200/- per acre.”
4. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon section 12 of the Act and seeking support from British India Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India ILR 38 Calcutta 230 and Kashi Parshad v. Notified Area, Mahoba AIR 1932 Allahabad 598 has vehemently contended that the Land Acquisition Collector being an agent of the State Government had no power to review or supersede his earlier award dated March 18, 1966 by his subsequent award dated July 30, 1966. According to him the subsequent award is a nullity and as such the subsequent proceedings based on the said award are liable to be quashed.
5. It is not necessary for us to go into the question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before us.
6. There are no pleadings on the record to give factual support to the contention raised by the learned counsel. There was no issue on the point before the District Judge and the point was not raised at any stage in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. Even before the High Court the precise question was not raised and as such the High Court had no occasion to go into the same.
7. It is obvious from the award dated March 18, 1966 that it relates only to Narmot quality of land. The Collector awarded Rs.7310/- per acre compensation for the said land. No value was fixed for Chahi and Ghair Mumkin Land. He deferred the award for Chahi and Ghair Mumkin Land and referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for his report. It is thus obvious that the award dated March 18, 1966 was not a complete award. It is not disputed, as stated by the Collector in the said award, that Chahi land was more valuable than the Narmot land. The Deputy Commissioner had, however, recommended higher value for Narmot land (Rs.7310/- per acre) and less value for Chahi land (Rs.4600/- per acre). It was for this reason that the Collector refused to base the award on the report of the Deputy Commissioner. He referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration and deferred the final award.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances under which the award dated March 18, 1966 was given it could not be the final award. The subsequent award dated July 30, 1966 noticed the earlier award dated March 18, 1966 and specifically superseded the same. In the subsequent award the Collector, relying upon the report of the Naib Tehsildar and Zilladar, fixed Rs.2200/- per acre for Narmot land and Rs.4600/- for Chahi land.
9. In any case the District Judge under section 18 of the Act fixed the price uniformly at Rs.4600/- per acre. The High Court has upheld the findings of the District Judge. The market value of the land having been fixed on the basis of the evidence produced by the appellant before the District Judge, no prejudice has been caused to him.
10. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
1. This appeal has arisen from the land acquisition proceedings. By a notification dated June 3, 1961 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (the Act) agricultural land belonging to the appellant was sought to be acquired for the public purpose indicated therein. The Collector assessed the market value of the land at the varying rates based on the quality of the land. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act the learned District Judge awarded the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.4600/- per acre. The regular first appeal against the award of the learned District Judge was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated July 31, 1979. This appeal by way of special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court.
2. The order of this Court dated January 22, 1982 granting special leave is as under:-
“Special Leave to Appeal is granted confined to the question that High Court omitted to consider the significance of the earlier award made by the Collector and that in relying on the earlier award the petitioner/appellant was obliged to challenge the final award made on July 30, 1966.”
We may briefly notice the facts necessary to examine the limited question on which the leave was granted by this Court. The Land Acquisition Collector announced partial award on March 18, 1966. The operative part of the award is as under:-
“Deputy Commissioner has supplied the rate of Rs.7310/- per acre for the Barani Land in this village which seems to be fair and reasonable and after careful consideration of actual sales of Barani Lands and all other factors such as quality of soil and situation of land I give my award of Narmot (Oklan Barani) land as Rs.7310/ per acre. As regards Chahi land the D.C. has supplied the rate of Rs.4600/- per acre which is much less than actual market rates and usually the rates of chahi land and Nehri lands are more than those of Barani lands. So the Deputy Commissioner’s rate for Chahi land is incorrect and is less than actual market rate. As regards Ghair Mumkin land also there is no specific soil of land of this class from which its exact market price may be otherwise ascertained. So, I give my award for Barani land Rs.7310/- per acre and the award for Chahi and Ghair Mumkin land will be given on receipt of revised rates from Deputy Commissioner to whom the reference under para 43 of S.O. 28 (of For) 5 is being made. The land owners are at no loss in this case as they are not required to pay any stamp duty etc. Moreover, they are to receive 15% compulsory acquisition charges also.”
3. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector gave final award dated July 30, 1966. The operative part of the award is as under:-
“This award will be in supersession of award No.33-G dated 18.3.66 given by my predecessor. That award was given only for Ghair Mumkin land while the area acquired consists of Chahi Nirmot and Banjar Qadim land also. That award was not legal according to the L.A. Act so the present award should read in supersession of the above award given by my predecessor.
MARKET VALUE. Some of the land owners and interested persons namely Shri Charan Mohan Lal and others appeared before my predecessor on 18.3.66. They demanded Rs.30,000/- per acre for Chahi land, but they did not produce any evidence to support their demand. I have gone through the file and I find as under.
The Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon has supplied the rate of Rs.4611/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.7310/- per acre for Nirmot land and No. rate for Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin Lands. The N.T.L.A. Rohtak and the Zilladar L.A. have both proposed Rs.4600/- per acre for Chahi, Rs.2200/- per acre for Nirmot, Rs.400/- per acre for Banjar Qadim and Rs.200/- per acre for Ghair Mumkin.
As regards Chahi land I find that the rate proposed by the D.O.N.T.L.A. and the Zilladar are practically the same. I therefore fix my award at the rate of Rs.4600/- per acre for Chahi land. Nirmot class of land is a superior Barani land. Therefore the price of Nirmot land cannot exceed the price of Chahi Land. The high rate of Nirmot land applied by the Deputy Commissioner are not proper. I am of the opinion that the price of Nirmot land is generally 1/2 price of Chahi land. In my opinion the joint proposal by the N.T.L.A. and the Zilladar L.A. regarding price of Nirmot land should be accepted. I therefore fix my award at Rs.2200/- per acre.”
4. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon section 12 of the Act and seeking support from British India Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India ILR 38 Calcutta 230 and Kashi Parshad v. Notified Area, Mahoba AIR 1932 Allahabad 598 has vehemently contended that the Land Acquisition Collector being an agent of the State Government had no power to review or supersede his earlier award dated March 18, 1966 by his subsequent award dated July 30, 1966. According to him the subsequent award is a nullity and as such the subsequent proceedings based on the said award are liable to be quashed.
5. It is not necessary for us to go into the question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before us.
6. There are no pleadings on the record to give factual support to the contention raised by the learned counsel. There was no issue on the point before the District Judge and the point was not raised at any stage in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. Even before the High Court the precise question was not raised and as such the High Court had no occasion to go into the same.
7. It is obvious from the award dated March 18, 1966 that it relates only to Narmot quality of land. The Collector awarded Rs.7310/- per acre compensation for the said land. No value was fixed for Chahi and Ghair Mumkin Land. He deferred the award for Chahi and Ghair Mumkin Land and referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for his report. It is thus obvious that the award dated March 18, 1966 was not a complete award. It is not disputed, as stated by the Collector in the said award, that Chahi land was more valuable than the Narmot land. The Deputy Commissioner had, however, recommended higher value for Narmot land (Rs.7310/- per acre) and less value for Chahi land (Rs.4600/- per acre). It was for this reason that the Collector refused to base the award on the report of the Deputy Commissioner. He referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration and deferred the final award.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances under which the award dated March 18, 1966 was given it could not be the final award. The subsequent award dated July 30, 1966 noticed the earlier award dated March 18, 1966 and specifically superseded the same. In the subsequent award the Collector, relying upon the report of the Naib Tehsildar and Zilladar, fixed Rs.2200/- per acre for Narmot land and Rs.4600/- for Chahi land.
9. In any case the District Judge under section 18 of the Act fixed the price uniformly at Rs.4600/- per acre. The High Court has upheld the findings of the District Judge. The market value of the land having been fixed on the basis of the evidence produced by the appellant before the District Judge, no prejudice has been caused to him.
10. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
