Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF ORISSA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJAKISHORE DAS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1508 1996 SCC (4) 221
JT 1996 (3) 560 1996 SCALE (3)68
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Though the respondent has been served, he does not
appear either in person or through counsel. This appeal by
special leave arises from the order dated 1.3.1990 made by
the High Court of Orissa in First Appeal No.252/87.
The notification under section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Gazette on
25.3.1985 acquiring about 120 decimals of land for extension
of Vidyut Marg in Bhubaneshwar Municipality. The Land
Acquisition Officer passed his award under Section 11 on
7.10.1985 awarding a total compensation of a sum of Rs.1
lakhs. Dissatisfied therewith, the respondent sought for
reference and also demanded Rs.2 lakhs for the building
constructed thereon. The reference Court by judgment and
decree dated 19.8.1987 awarded compensation @ Rs.1,66,000/-
per acre and other statutory benefits. On further appeal,
the High Court enhanced the compensation in respect of The
building from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1 lakh. Feeling aggrieved
with the enhanced compensation in respect of the building,
this appeal by special leave has been filed.
The Division Bench has recorded the finding that though
a sale was purported to have been made of the half
constructed building on March 30, 1981 for residential
purpose, the sanction for the construction of the building
from the Municipality was not obtained. The construction was
unauthorized. Nonetheless, the High Court directed the
payment of compensation. We find that the approach of the
High Court is clearly illegal. Having recorded the finding
that the respondent had constructed the building without
permission of any authority and since the Government is
entitled to have the unauthorized construction demolished,
unless the owner himself voluntarily demolishes and takes
the value of the building structure as salvage material. the
High Court ought to have held that the respondent had
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
proceeded unauthorisedly in constructing the building having
had the knowledge of the acquisition. Therefore, the
authorities are not bound by such construction.
Consequently, the State is not bound to pay compensation of
the value of such a building constructed unauthorisedly. The
judgment and order passed by the High Court directing
payment of compensation of Rs.90,000/- is clearly illegal.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the
reference Court for a sum of Rs.10,000/- is upheld and the
direction for payment of the balance amount stands set
aside. No costs.