Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of land
admeasuring about 848.67 sq.mtrs. being plot No. 53-A of
scheme No.52, Worli Estate in Greater Bombay as a tenant.
The landlady, Mrs. Jerbanoo Khurshad Jehangir Cursetji and
her husband Dr. K.J. Khurshad filed a writ petition in the
High Court for a direction whether petitioner would acquire
the land or surrender possession to them so that they would
develop the land on their own accord. In the Writ Petition
No.1733/94, the High Court had directed by order dated
August 16, 1994 to take a decision whether the petitioner
would proceed with the acquisition. In that event, direction
was given to the Collector to take necessary action for
acquiring the land within four months from the date of the
said order. Accordingly, notification came to be published
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on February 23, 1995
and award enquiry was conducted. The Land Acquisition
Officer in his award dated May 30, 1995 determined the
compensation at the rate of Rs.8300/-per sq.ft. for the land
in question and determined the total compensation for
Rs.7,57,92,954/- along with other compensation for other
lands with which we are not concerned. Since the amount was
not paid, the respondents have taken motion in the above
writ petition being motion in the above writ petition being
motion No.156/96. The Division Bench has directed the
petitioners to deposit the amount by June 30, 1996, which we
are informed, was extended to October 1, 1996.
Shri N.N. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, sought to contend that the Land Acquisition
Officer has determined compensation arbitrarily and,
therefore, it is not a reasonable rate of compensation which
the lands are capable to fetch. Alternatively, he contended
that since the petitioners have been continuing in
occupation as tenants, they are also entitled to pro rata
compensation for the tenancy rights held by the petitioners
and that the Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, has not
properly considered the same. As far as the first point is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
concerned, we find absolutely no merit. The award of the
Collector is an offer made on behalf of the State and,
therefore, under law, the State cannot question the
correctness of the award determined by the Land Acquisition
Officer. The State is bound by the same. Under these
circumstances, they cannot impeach the award of the
Collector as being excessive of the prevailing market value
as on the date of the notification. There is no law
applicable to the petitioners that they are entitled to seek
any reference under Section 18 as regards the rate of
compensation determined under Section 23(1) of the Act. Only
in the State to seek reference under Section 18 (3) was
conferred upon the Commissioner. No such similar law is
existing under Act 1 of 1894.
He states that the Government have filed another writ
petition which was dismissed on August 30, 1996 in which
they claimed the right to compensation awarded by the
Collector towards their tenancy rights. If that be so, it
would be open to them to agitate the remedy in that behalf
in an appeal filed against that order in the writ petition
or in any appropriate proceedings arising thereunder. We do
not find any illegality in the impugned order.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.