BRIJ BEHARI SAHAI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 28-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BRIJ BEHARI SAH.AI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
NOVEMBER 28, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARJJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 18-Acquisition of suit property--
State and Claimants claiming title over the suit property-Land Acqtfisition 
Officer awarding compensation to State and claimants in 10:6 ratio-
C Reference Court granting full awarded compensation to claimants-High 
Court restoring the award of Land Acquisition Officer-Validity of-Held, 
on facts, State and claimants entitled to co;npensation in 25:75 ratio on 
account of disputed stands taken. 
Respondent State initially filed suits before trial court for recovery 
D of arrears of ground rent on the suit properties against the predecessors 
in interest of appellants treating them as lessees of the lands. When the 
claim of the State was rejected, the State initiated acquisition proceedings 
of the suit land belonging to the appellants. State took a stand that the 
appellants and their predecessor-in-title were the owners of the suit 
E properties. The Land Acquisition Officer held that the appellants were 
holding lease hold rights for Qver thirty years and awarded compensation 
between the State and the appellants in the proportion of 10 : 6 
respectively. The appellants and the State sought reference under 
Section 18(1) of the Lano Acquisition Act, 1894 before Reference 
F Court, and the State took the stand that the State is the absolute owner 
of the suit properties on expiry of the lease granted to the appellants 
G 
and their predecessor-in-interest. Reference Court dismissed the claim 
of the State and allowed the claim of the appellants. It also held that 
the whole compensation amount would go to the appellants. High 
Court allowed the appeal by the State and restored the apportionment 
of compensation ordered by the Land Acquisition Officer. 
In appeal, the appellants contended that the suit lands were held 
on perpetual lease and was not for a specified period; that they had 
complete title on the suit land; and that the right available to the State 
H could only be to the extent of recovering ground rent assessed or its 
302 
B.B. SAHA! v. ST A TE 
303 
capitalised value and not the compensation amount on land acquisi- A 
tion. 
The respondents contended that the appellants are not entitled to 
any compensation amount on the suit lands since it had exclusive 
rights; and that the grant was gi\'en to the appellants for a specified B 
period and on expiry of the period, the lands vest with the State. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Both the parties on either side should not be allowed C 
to adopt their respective extreme stands at this point of time and to 
some extent, they will be precluded from doing so on the principle of 
estoppel arising out of their own conduct for such long spells of time. 
On the facts and circumstances of the case, there is enough justification 
to hold that the Nazul character· of the land can be sustained with 
corresponding rights of perpetual lessee in the appellants and their D 
predecessor-in-interest subject to the payment of the periodically 
revised ground rent. (318-G, HJ 
1.2. The claim of the appellants that the entire compensation was 
only in respect of the totality of the rights held by the appellants as E 
lessees and not of the whole inclusive of the rights and interests of the 
State is not acceptable. Though as a matter of principle oflaw, the State 
while invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for ac4airing 
a land in which the State also had some or other of interest, need not 
go for acquiring their interest as well and what is permissible as well F 
as obligllted for acquisition is only of such of the private interest of 
third parties other than that of the State, the Land Acquisition Officer 
in this case has chosen to, while determining the market value, 
indisputably proceed to determine for the whole of it and only as a 
consequence thereof has chosen to apportion compensation between G 
the State and the appellants in the ratio of 10:6 respe~tively. Though 
the Reference Court, during the course of its judgment, adverts to the 
principles relating to the need or desirability of acquiring only private 
parties other than that of the Government under the Land Acquisition 
Act bas ultimately chosen to adopt only the standard and rate of H 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A market value determined b

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