LexBHUSAWAL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL versus NIVRUTTI RAMCHANDRA PHALAK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 259 BHUSAWAL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. NIVRUTTI RAMCHANDRA PHALAK & ORS. (C::ivil Appeal Nos. 11227-11228 of 2013) DECEMBER ·17, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Land Acquisition: A B Agricultural land - Acquired by Municipal Council - For c opening a primary school - High Court, by an interim order, directing appellant-Council to pay to respondents 50% of enhanced compensation as awarded by reference court - Held: If the land is to be acquired, law requires prompt payment of compensation - In case the party by whom or for 0 whom the land is acquired is not in a position to make the payment of compensation, the person-aggrieved becomes entitled to get the land restored - Payment of compensation as per award u/s 11 of the Act 1894, cannot be sufficient security to serve the interest of the person-interested pending adjudication of appeal against the reference court's award - The excuse that appellant-Council has paucity of funds cannot be accepted as a justified cause to entertain the petition - The appellant is directed to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation, failing which it must restore the possession of suit land to persons aggrieved who in turn would refund the entire amount received as compensation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 11 and 18 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. E F Acquisition of land - Court showing its concern on State/ G Authorities dragging uprooted claimants into litigation up to apex Court for payment of paltry amounts - Government litigation. 259 H 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS' [2013] 17 S.C.R. A Constitution of India, 1950: Art.300A rlw Arts. 21 and 21-A - Acquisition of agricultural land for opening a primary school - Obligation of State or its instrumentality to open school and right of an 8 individual land owner whose land is being acquitted for the purpose - Discussed. The instant appeals arose out of the interim order passed by the High Court in the appeal filed by the appellant-Municipal Council, directing it to pay to the C respondents 50% of the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court for acquisition of agricultural lands, and the order of the High Court rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking to stay the freezing of its bank accounts. D Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The appellant might be willing to meet its Constitutional or legal obligation to open a primary school for imparting education to children below 14 years E of age but it cannot be done at the cost of individual- citizens by depriving them of their Constitutional rights under Art.300A of the Constitution. [para 8] [265-F-G] 1.2. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 F provide for ·two awards; one is made by a Land Acquisition Collector uls 11 of the Act 1894 which is an offer on behalf of the State as he also acts as an agent of the State, and the second award is made by the court uls18 of the Act 1894. The reference court after examining G and considering the evidence adduced by the parties assesses the market value of the land. In doing so, there may be some variation in actual valuation of the land but that does not justify staying the operation of the award in toto. [para 9] [265-H; 266-A-B] H BHUSAWAL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. NIVRUTTI 261 RAMCHANDRA PHALAK 1.3. It has been noticed that land owners are being deprived of their valuable rights without complying with the statutory provisions of the Act 1894 or possession is taken without paying any amount of compensation. Right to property has been held not only a Constitutional or a statutory right but also a human right. Therefore, it is not permissible for any State/authority to uproot a person and deprive him of his human rights, without ensuring compliance of the statutory requirement under the garb of development. The fundamental right of a farmer to cultivate his land is a part of right to livelihood. [para 11, 13 and 17] [266-D, G; 267-8; 268-C] Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. 2012 (13) SCR 29 = AIR 2013 SC 565; K. Krishna Reddy & Ors. v. The Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 853 = AIR 1988 SC 2123; Narain Das Jain (since deceased) by Lrs. v. Agra Nagar Mahapa/ika, Agra 1991 (1) SCR 389 = (1991) 4 SCC 212; Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.