Land acquisition

Grievance of appellants was that as the purpose for which land was acquired, had been abandoned therefore, it should have been returned to them

Validity

On completion of acquisition process, acquired land absolutely vested in Provincial Government who in bona fide exercise of discretion could put the same to any other "public purpose" on abandonment or frustration or change or non-requirement of the land for the original purpose of acquisition

Acquired land was originally utilized for the object of acquisition and was used for a period of forty years

On dis-investment of transport company, Provincial Government through a notification decided to utilize the acquired land for constructing and setting up a hospital, which hospital was providing health facilities to general public

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

Petitioners' land was acquired by National Highway Authority (NHA) during the year 1994 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the matter was referred to District Assessment Committee (DAC) to assess its value

Committee assessed the value of land and conveyed its decision to E.D.O. (R) for obtaining sanction of the Board of Revenue under R.12 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983

Notification under Ss.17(4) & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was also issued

Board of Revenue approved estimated cost of the land in the year 2005

Land Acquisition Collector proceeded and assessed the value of land lower than the one approved by Board of Revenue and published the award

Board of Revenue declared the award to be illegal and Land Acquisition Collector had withdrawn the award with the intimation that a fresh award would be given later

Contention of the petitioner was that under the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Punjab, the price had to be assessed in the manner as was done in the current case, and the Land Acquisition Collector had no authority to give an award at a rate less than the approved estimated cost of land

No provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 existed whereby Provincial Board of Revenue could interfere with an award given under S.11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

High Court allowed the constitutional petition filed by landowner and declared the order of Provincial Board of Revenue for cancellation of award illegal and disposed of the constitutional petition of the petitioner with the direction to file a reference in terms of S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the referee Court should decide the reference accordingly.

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Factors requiring consideration stated.

Landowner was awarded interest on market value of land @ 6% per annum from time of taking possession of acquired land till date of payment of compensation.

Both the petitioner/owner' of land as well as respondent Department did not dispute the claim of each other qua land in vicinity

Contention however was with regard the land falling along with the distributory

Courts below rightly held that disputed portion of land could be ascertained only through demarcation and that petitioners should have filed a suit to that effect

Such concurrent findings were not open to exception.

District Collector had annulled the entitlement of the petitioners on the ground that they did not qualify for the grant of alternate lands as they did not satisfy the criterion laid down for the purpose

Factual determination by District Collector was confirmed by Board of Revenue through its revisional orders finding that in most of the cases fraud had been committed by deceitfully forging the relevant documents changing the classification of the acquired land

Validity

Supreme Court declined to take any exception to the facts as found by District Collector which were confirmed by Board of Revenue

Leave to appeal was refused.

Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider, inter alia, whether apart from public notice as envisaged under S.6(1) of Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, was it also necessary to serve personal notice on all owners of land and claimants of interest in such land; whether non-service of personal service would vitiate acquisition proceedings and whether statutory notices contemplated in various provisions of the Act were intended for purpose of assessment of compensation only or were also meant to provide an opportunity to affected persons to object to acquisition of land sought to be acquired.

Petitioner had alleged that Authorities had not paid amount of compensation to him while same was paid to other land owners where land was also acquired

Receipts attached by the Authorities with report and parawise comments showed that amount of compensation had been paid to the petitioner, but he had concealed said material fact from the High Court

Disputed questions of facts were involved in the case and High Court had no jurisdiction to resolve such questions in its Constitutional jurisdiction.

Landowner in petition under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had specifically asserted that his land was identical to other land acquired at higher rate

Authorities in its reply had admitted award of such higher compensation, but had not denied landowner's assertion that his land was of same kind

Landowner's such assertion would be deemed to have been admitted by authorities

Fact admitted need not be proved

Such was a clear case of discrimination violating rights guaranteed to landowner under Art.25 of the Constitution

High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.

Scheme of law under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is complete and exhaustive, which apart from mode of acquisition of land, provides a scheme containing machinery for taking measurement of land, assessment of value, payment of compensation to interested persons, and in case of any dispute provides a remedy through a reference by Collector to Civil Court.

Scheme of Land Acquisition Act 1894, is that the power of the owner of land to be acquired to deal with it comes to an end after the publication of the notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Market value of such land on the date of publication of the notification is the measure of compensation to be awarded to the owner

Market value which has to be determined for the purposes of compensation, includes estimates of actual speculative increase in the value of lauds in consequence of improvements already made in the locality or in consequence of potentialities for any purpose.

Determining factors enlisted.

Decree-holders/landowners had prayed for granting them additional compensation under S.28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but their prayer was refused by Executing Court for the reasons that said amount was not claimed by decree-holders in their original claim and that additional compensation had not been awarded in the decree

Validity

Intervention of Court and adjudication, was not required for payment of additional compensation under S.28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Omission on part of decree-holders/land owners to claim additional compensation to which they were entitled under mandate of law itself or omission of Court to grant the same, was totally immaterial and of no consequence

Decree-holders/landowners were entitled to additional compensation under S.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which could be granted by Executing Court while executing the decree

Statement filed by decree-holders before Executing Court during course of execution proceedings containing claim for additional compensation at 15% per annum under S. 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was correct and payable in law to which they were entitled to claim.

Respondent being bound to pay additional compensation to appellants/decree-holders, they were ordered to deposit said amount within specified period.

If land was required by the Government for defence or for any public purpose, there was no bar for its acquisition under the law

Government, if was in need of land for use of public purpose, it could still acquire the same in accordance with law.

Owners of acquired land being not satisfied with the amount of compensation fixed by Collector, an application was referred to referee Court for determination of compensation amount

Referee Court, after framing issues and recording pro and contra evidence of parties enhanced compensation amount vide its judgment and decree-Acquisition Collector while determining compensation considered acquired land as Barani, whereas factual position was that the said land was not Barani, but was Chahi land

Trial Court having not any sale transaction in Mauza wherefrom land was acquired, Court had to rely upon price of adjacent Mauzas and worked out average price by adding one year average price and fixed the same price which was not only based on evidence available on record, but also was very near to the price of Chahi land

Referee Court had rightly taken into consideration one year average of adjacent Mauzas and had properly granted compensation to owners of acquired land

In absence of any illegality/non-reading of evidence warranting interference, appeal against judgment of Referee Court was dismissed.

Basic method to determine compensation was to take into consideration the instances of sale of the adjacent land made shortly before and after the notification

Market value was to be determined on the basis of the instances of sale of land in neighbouring locality, the potential value of the land need not be separately awarded because such sale covered the potential value

Value of the land of the adjoining area which was simultaneously acquired and for which different formula of compensation had been adopted should be taken into consideration

­Neither the Land Acquisition Collector nor the Referee Judge in the present case, had taken into consideration the actual market value of the acquired land nor had they appreciated the potentiality of the land and had also failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and to take into consideration the settled criteria for fixation of compensation

Award showed that both the forums had also failed to award the interest to the landowners to which they were entitled under the law

High Court, fixed the compensation according to the criteria and awarded the interest and passed the decree accordingly.

Claim of petitioners that their land could not be acquired as they were owners of that land by virtue of direct operation of Settlement Scheme No.7, was rejected throughout by Courts below

Even if it was assumed that petitioners, as argued, were owners by operation of said Scheme, it was doubtful whether civil suit was competent or that land could be treated as immune from acquisition

Claim of petitioners was thus rightly rejected by Courts below and as such case was not fit for grant of leave to appeal.

Contention that two similar appeals regarding compensation for trees were heard by the High Court and while discussing the features of each case, some considerations of one appeared to have weighed with the High Court in the other case

Leave to appeal granted to examine whether; in the facts and circumstances of the case the two appeals should not have been dealt with separately, and that, if they had to be disposed of together, the treatment and discussion of the evidence and its effects in each case, should not have been separate.

Terms of notification indicating that Central Government had made requisite declaration for acquisition of lands in question

Provincial Government cannot grant lease for removal and collection of sludge/slurry from land covered by notification.

Land acquired for public purposes-Finding of Collector in matter of Award that fruit-bearing trees were planted after notification under S.4 of Act (I of 1894) and there being overwhelming evidence to show that said trees were planted after notification and in rebuttal petitioners' evidence being insignificant and doubtful, Supreme Court upheld concurrent findings of two Courts below and refused leave to appeal.

Withdrawal of compensation amount during pendency of reference, without protest-Consequence of application for reference pending

Petitioners accepting compensation without protest

Maintainability of application under S.18 of Act (I of 1894) assailed

Plea raised that since appellants had filed application under S. 18 regarding inadequacy of compensation amount, they should be deemed to have lodged protest within meaning of second proviso to subsection (2) of S. 31 of Act

Held: Fact that appellants had moved application for reference indicated that they had not consented to receive amount of compensation and it was not further necessary to withdraw money under protest as requirement of first proviso to subsection (2) of S. 31 was sufficiently complied with

Appeal accepted and case remanded for disposal on merits.

High Court refused to stay execution proceedings and allowed respondent to receive amount of compensation after furnishing security for refund

Order impugned

Plea of non-availability of funds for payment of compensation, held, could hardly justify stay of execution proceedings

Supreme Court declined to interfere with interim and discretionary order and refused leave to appeal.

Proceedings before Court being of nature of objection to Collector's award and not judicial enquiry independently undertaken into such questions as claimant may raise

Pleadings being foundation for grounds on which objection is taken to award while seeking judicial determination not open to claimant to make out fresh case, whether by way of supplementary claims to compensation or otherwise at stage o