AKHARA BRAHM BUTA, AMRITSAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 24-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.1 
AKHARA BRAHM BUTA, AMRITSAR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 
AUGUST 24, 1992 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Ss. 12, JS-Award-Compensation-Agreement between palties includ-
ing State-Pait of agreement given effect in awartf-State bound to modify the 
scheme in terms of agreement . 
Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 : 
c 
S.41-State Government-Power to sanction, reject or return scheme-
Agreement by State to modify scheme under Land Acquisition Act-lm- D 
plemeniation of-Whether discretionary on palt of State . 
.In pursuance of the High Court's judgment based on a compromise 
to which the State Government was also a party, a portion of daimant's 
land acquired under .the Land AcquisitioD Act, 1894 was to be exclude<! 
from the Scheme and for the. remaining land the compensation was to be E 
paid at the stipulated rate. Although the compensation was awarded in 
terms of the judgment, yet the land was not released. The claimant, being 
unsuccessful in two successive contempt petitions for implementation of 
the judgment, filed a writ petition .which was dismissed by the High Court 
on the ground that the State was not a party to the compromise. 
On claimant's appeal by special leave to this Court, it was contended 
on behalf of the respondent State that in view of s. 41 of the Punjab Town 
Improvement Act, 1922, it was the discretion of the State Government to 
have agreed or not with the modiOcation of the Scheme and it could not 
F 
be forced to take a particular decision. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. The State is bou11d to modify the scheme in view of its 
stand before the High Court in pursuance of which the judgment in the 
earlier writ petition was given. The collector while making the award relied H: ·. 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
upon the agreement and fixed the compensation accordingly. Having taken 
advantage of the agreement in part and having repeatedly agreed to the 
terms of the compromise between the appellant and the Improvement 
Trust, the State Government cannot be permitted to back out of it. The 
conclusion of the High Court is clearly erroneous. [p.3 A-CJ 
B 
2. Since houses have already been constructed 90 the acquired land 
and appellant is willing to accept only compensation for the entire land at 
the market rate as on 19.4.1983, no part of the land under acquisition shall 
be given back to the appellant, but the compensation for the entire area 
shall be paid at the market rate prevailing on 19.4.1983, the date on which 
C the instant writ petition was dismissed by the High Conrt. The valuation 
will be fixed by the Civil Court in the same manner as it is done on 
reference under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. [p.3 D-F) 
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1C543of1983. 
D 
From the Jndgment and Order dated 19.4.1983 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Appeal No. 6300 of 1982. 
Anant Vijay Palli, E.C. Agrawala, Atul Sharma, Ms. Rina Agarwal 
and Ms. Purnima Bhat for the Appellant. 
E 
A.S. Sohal, G.K. Bansal, Sanjay Bansal and R.S. Sodhi for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. In a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the 
F 
land acquisition proceeding an agreement was reached between the appellant 
and the Improvement Trust for excluding 12 Kanals ofland from the Scheme 
and to pay the appellant the compensation for the remaining land at the rate of 
2 rupees per square yard. The State was a party and joined the compromise 
through its counsel. The matter was disposed of by the judgment at pages 44 to 
46. The Scheme, however, does not appear to have been formally modified 
G and the appellant had to file an application for coI<tempt, which was again 
disposed of by the order at page 48. The Improvement Trust, through its 
counsel gave an undertaking to release the land in presence of State counsel. 
Still the judgment was not implemented and the appellant had to file a second 
application for contempt which was dismissed at pages 54 to 62 by leaving the 
. H controversy open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. In these cir-
AB. BlJTA 1·. STATE OF PUNJAB [SHARMA, J.] 
3 
cumstances the present writ petition out of which this appeal arises, wes filed by A 
the appellant for implementation of the compromise. The High Court has dis-
missed the petition on the ground that the State was not a party to the agre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.