ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL versus COLLECTOR, VARANASI

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1025 · Decided: 16-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. NATARAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
' ' 
ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
COLLECTOR, VARANASI 
FEBRUARY 16, 1988 
A 
[S. NATARAJAN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4, 11, 18 and 23-
Compensation-Valuation of land-Determination of market value-
Price fetched for comparative land sold at time of section 4 
Notification-Best evidence of valuation-Land with building-
. Determination of value of building-Free growth on land-Whether 
C 
~n 
be valued on basis of horticultural value. 
I 
1 
Solarium and interest-Applicability of higher rates-Effect of 
U.P. Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1972 and Central Amendment 
Act 1982-Question left open in view of pendency of Bhag Singh v. 
U. T. Chandigarh. 
D 
' 
Practice and Procedure: Compensation to be awarded for change 
of residence-Question under Section 23 clause Fifthly L.A. Act 1894-
Raised for first time in S. L. P. under Article 136 without taking specific 
ground-New plea-Disallowed. 
The suit property known as "Gopal Lal Villa" situated on the 
outskirts of the city of Varanasi was a sprawling 60 years old building, 
part of the estate of a Raja, and vested in the appellant. It was acquired 
pursuant to preliminary Notification dated 4. 7. 1959 under the Land 
Acquisition Act 1894 for the purposes of the Education Department of 
E 
the Government of Uttar Pradesh. 
F 
The building was of about 25,000 square feet plinth area compris-
ing 35 rooms, halls and other appurtenances, and the 23.66 acres of 
ground appurtenant to the building, had 431 fruit and 13 timber trees 
and 12 bamboo clumps. 
The appellant claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,580 for the land 
Y valuing it at Rs.352 per decimal. Rs.3,50,000 for the building and 
structures; Rs.41,0to for the tree growth and Rs.5,000 as compensation 
for change of residence. 
G 
The Land Acquisition Officer by his Award dated 4. 11. 1961 H 
• 
1025 
1026 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 
I 1988) 2 S.C.R. 
A under s. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the market value of Y 
the land at Rs.3,31,340 valuing it at Rs.140 per decimal; of the building 
and superstructure at Rs.57 ,660 and of the tree growth at Rs.355.83. 
! 
~
Being aggrieved with the aforesaid determination of compensa-
B lion the appellant did not accept the offer contained in the Award, and 
sought for a reference under s. 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. 
c 
The District Court enhanced the market value of the land to 
Rs.4, 73;200 i.e. from Rs.140 to Rs.200 per decimal and left the valua-
tion of the building and the tree growth undisturbed. 
• 
The High Court affirmed the A ward of the District Court and 
. 
dismissed the appellant's claim for further enhancement. 
-~ 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the 
appellant that the claim of Rs.352 per decimal was not accepted and 
that the High Court in affirming the valuation of the land at a mere 
D Rs. 200 per decimal overlooked certain settled principles of valuation. It 
adopted the District Judge's valuation which was the average of the 
valuation reflected in Ext. 2 and Ext. 19 while the higher of the two 
figures indicated by Ext. 2 should have been adopted. It was further 
contended that the appellant was entitled to solatium and interest at 
higher rates in view of the re-introduction of s. 23(2) in 1972 by the U.P. 
E Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1972 and under the Central 
Amendment Act 68 of 1984. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the changes in 
law brought about by the State Amendment Act No. 28 of 1972 and the 
Central Amending Act 68 of 1984 are presumptively prospective except 
F to the extent that they are made expressly or by compelling implication 
retrospective in the extension of their benefits. 
G 
H 
On the question whether: 
(1) the estimate of the market-value of the acquired land at 
Rs.200 per decimal is unreasonably low and is arrived at 
ignoring the evidence on record and settled principles of 
valuation. 
Y 
(2) the valuation of the buildings and structures at a mere 
Rs.57 ,660 calls for an upward revision. 
/ 
ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL v.·COLLECTOR 
1027 
'( 
(3) the award made for the tree-growth is inadequate and is 
A 
required to be valued higher . 
. .. 
( 4) appellant is entitled to the benefit of s. 23(2) of the Act as 
introduced by the U.P. Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 
1972 providing for solatium and to higher rates of solatium 
and interest under the Central Amending Act 1984 on the 
B 
ground that proceedings

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.