CHANDRA BANSI SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 579 · Decided: 22-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
•. 
• 
• 
• 
CHANDRA BANS! SINGH AND ORS. ETC . 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. 
Si19 
' " 
August 22, 1984 
B 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI 
MUKHARJi, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Proceedings under Section 4 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 taken. 
On 19.8.74 seeking to acquire land 
for Housing Board but on 24.5.80 a small portion of land of a particular 
influential family wa~ exempted from the acqulsttton-Whether the release 
of the said land is in violation of Artfcle 14 of th1 Constitution arzd whether the 
entire acquisition Proceedi'ngs would be vitiated by the said Act of release-
Compensatlon payable should be based, whether at the prevailing market value 
on the data of Sectiotr 4 Notification or on the date of actual take over of 
possession-Supreme Court being a Court of equity as well. it can award 
compensation for t'ie delay in actual turnover. 
Respondent State issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land 
Acquisition Act. 1894 seeking to acquire 1034.94 acres of land in Village 
Digha for the purpose of construction of houses by the Bihar State Hou'iing 
Board and the price or compensation for the acquired land was to be paid. 
by the 
Hou~iog Board and not by the State from its own funds. 
In July 
1977, the State Ministry of Revenue and Industry, after issuinJ Notifica-
tions under Sections 6, 7 and 9 and after considering tbe claims and 
objections confiirmed the acquisition. 
On 24.5.1980 a portion of the 
land comprising 4.03 acres belonging to some influentiJ.I persons (Pandey 
families) was released without there 
being any legal or constitutional 
justifiCation for the same. 
This release was challenged by way of Writ 
Petitions in the Bihar High Court, out of which the Present Civil Appeals. 
and Special Leave Petitions have arisen and by filling fresh Writ Petitions 
in the Court. 
Allowing the appeals aod the petitions in part, the Court 
HELD : 1. 
The order of release passed by the Goveroment under 
Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
non est, as being viola-
tive of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
The release of laod in favour of 
Pandey families was a pure and simple act of favouritism without there 
being any legal or constitutional justification for the same. [583G-H, 584G] 
2. 
The entire Notification issued under Section 4 on 19th August, 
1974 would be deemed to be valid and Ibo land released to the Pandey 
c 
n 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
580 
SUPREME COURT REPORT 
[1985) l s.c.R. 
A 
families would form part of tho acquisition as it did on 19.8.74. 
The 
release being separate and subsequent act of the Collector could not 
invalidate the entire Notification but would only invalidate the portion 
released. 
Lila Ram etc. v. Union of India and Ors.[1976] I SCR 941 
distinguished. [SSSC·D, E-F) 
B 
(J 
D 
E 
F 
G 
" 
3 : 1 
The contention that compensation should be paid according to 
the value of land prevailing on the date of actual take over of possessi9n, 
since the price of land bad appreciated substantiallyJ is not correct under the 
law for two reasons, namely; 
(i) thrrt it is not the fault of the Collector 
,for causing the delay in taking over the pos'lession because the matter was 
pursued both in the Courts and before the Government and the proceedings 
bad to be stayed, as a result of which Collector was pr'Cvented from taking 
possession or giving his award, although all proceedings had taken place; 
and (ii) The landowners being in continuous possession of the land bad 
enjoyed the usufruct of the same, particularly the lands happened to be 
mostly mango orchards and they must have derived large benefits by selling 
them in the market. [S86G-H, S87A-B) 
3 : 2 
However, the appellants have undoubtedly a case for pay .. 
ment of some additional compensation in equity which relief cannot be 
denied by the Supreme court which is not only a Court of law but a Court 
of equity as well. 
Apart from the compensation which may be awarded 
by the Collector or enhanced by tho Judge or a High Court the appellants 
should get an equitable compensation in the form of interest calculated at 
the rate of seven and a half percent per annum for two years on the value 
of land owned by each land owner. 
Thus equitable compensation bas 
been awarded in the special facts of the case appeal, if any, under the Act 
on tho amount of compensation payable. [587C-E] 
CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9973 to 
9977 of 1983 

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