LexBRIJ BEHARI SAHAI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
BRJJ BEHARI SARAI
v.
STAIB OF UTTAR PRADESH
AUGUST 5, 1986
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 23 & 35-Temporary occupation
of land-Statutory so/atium on the compensation decreed-Whether
admissible.
The appeals raise the question whether in a case where the Land
Acquisition Officer takes temporary occupation, the person interested
in the land was entitled to solatium on the compensation decreed in a
proceeding under s. 35 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court
refused to allow it.
-
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: I. The provisions of s. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
E
providing for payment of statutory solatium are not attracted to a case
of compensation under s. 35 of that Act. [470HJ
2. Temporary occupation of land, provided in Part VI of the Act,
·is distinct from, and is not included in, acquisition of land under Part II
of the Act because in acquisition in exercise of the right of eminent
F
domain title of the owner is extinguished and the property vests in the
State, whereas when temporary occupation is taken the title of the
owner remains untouched. [470C-D]
G
Tan Bug Taim v. Collector of Bombay, AIR 1946 Bom. 216 refer
red to.
3. Clause "secondly" in s. 23(1) of the Act is not applicable to
temporary occupation covered bys. 35 of the Act. Statutory solatium as
provided in s. 23(2) of the Act does not apply to a case of damage
covered by clause "secondly" in s. 23( 1) itself. "Market value"
occurs in the first clause of s. 23(1) of the Act and sub-s. (2) of s. 23
H
refers to market value. Solatium has reference to market value and the
468
-r-
-
-
B.B. SAHA! v. STA1EOFU.P.
469
-l
mandate to pay solatium is only in respect of market value. Compensa-
tion under s. 35 of the Act has no reference to market value and the
actual loss sustained by the persons interested in the land only is in-
tended to be compensated. [470•'-H]
A
CML APPEllATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1041 ol
B
1972 and 578 of 1975
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.1970 of the Allahabad
High Court in First Appeal No. 141of1958.
Manoj Swarup and Pramod Swarup for the Appellant.
Prithvi Raj and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondent.
;..
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANG ANA TH MISRA, J. Both these appeals ar~ by certificate
from the High Court of Allahabad and are directed against its modi-
fying common judgment in a proceeding under Section 35 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short).
Appellant Brij Behari Sahai held on lease little more than 42
acres of agricultural land out of Military Estates at Allahabad near the
confluence of the Ganges and the Yamuna. For the purposes of
Kumbh Mela in 1954 possession of the said land was taken from
November 1953 till March 1954. The Land Acquisition Officer made
an Award of compensation and there being difference as to the adequ-
~· acy of the compensation, the matter was referred to the Court for
decision. Against the decision of the Court enhancing the compensa-
tion, the State of Uttar Pradesh carried an appeal to the High Court of
Allahabad. Brij Behari Sahai preferred a cross-objection asking for
further enhancement of the compensation. The High Court dealt with
the appeal and the cross-objection and enhanced the compensation on
five heads as indicated in the penultimate paragraph of its judgment
but refused to allow statutory solatium of 15%. Against this judgment
of the High Court two separate appeals-one by Brij Behari Sahai and
the other by the State of Uttar Pradesh have been brought before this
Court.
Claimant's, counsel asked for enhancement of the compensation
on the basis of evidence but in the course of hearing we declined to
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 3 S.C.R.
entertain such a contention. Similarly, on behalf of the State challenge
was made to the quantum of compensation decreed in the High Court
and we did not agree to go into that aspeci. The appeal of the State
has, therefore, to be dismissed. One contention raised by the claimant
relates to entitlement of solatium on the compensation decreed. That
question requires to be examined.
It is a fact that the High Court referred to Section 23 (2) of the
Act while fixing the quantum of compensation. We are of the view that
Part VI of the Land Acquisition Act contains a complete code by itself
so far as temporary oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.