LexCHATURBHUJ. PANDA & ORS. versus THE COLLECTOR, RAIGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CHA1TRBHUJ. PANDA & ORS.
1'.
THE COLLECTOR, RAIGARH
July 23, 1968
[R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act (I of t 894), s. 23--0rchard acquired-De1er-
n1ina1ion of 111arket value-Trees if inc/ud"d in
hcnefit~r arisinl! out of
land-Staturary allowance, if pcnnissib/e-Practice-A ;\·ard of Costs.
Na1ura/ Justice-LookinJ: into docionents not part of record. a11d with-
out giving opportunity to the other party to rebut~Practice.
·1be appellants' lands consisting of orch:\rc.Js \i.•crc acquired under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and they were awarded compensation.
The
appellants, 'Y11ere dissatisfied with the amount, so it was referred to
the
District Court. \\·hich enhanced it.
'fhe 'respondent appealed to the High
G.lurt.
The High Court lookc<l into documenrs which .. vere not a part
of the rccorJ" of the case and <iho did not give any orportunity to the
appellants to rebut the conclusions reached on the hasis of those docu-
ments.
The High Court held th:H value of the tre!s fell under the
secondly clat1"-C of s. 23( I) therefore disal10,1:ed the 15';'; a1Io .. vanee per·
rnitted by s. 23(2) and directed the p;\rtic<;; to hear th-:?ir O\Vn costs. ln
appeal, this Court,
HELD: The High \,,.ourt v.·as \\·rong: in
di.;allo\ving
the
statutory
allow;ince pern1ittcd hy s. 23(2) over the v;1lue of the trees in the orchard.
Section J(a) prcscrihcd that "the expression 'land' includes bcnefitc;. to
arise out of Jand. and thing..; attached to the earth". l'hcrcforc the trees
that were standing in the land were a component part of the land acquired.
The lligh ('ourt failed to notice that v.·h,1t v.·as acquired v.·a..; not the
trees but the land as such.
The value of trees was ascertained only for
the purpose of fixing the market \'aluc of the land.
On the value of the
land as de:ermincd. the court was bound to allO\'.' the 15% allowance
provided bys. 23(2) of the Act. (415 D-PJ
Suh-Collector of Goda\•ari v. Scraga111 Suhharryadu & Ors.. 1.L.R.
A
B
c
D
E
1907, Mad. p, 151. approved.
F
(ii) l'hc High Coun \\'as not ri!!ht in looking into fresh documents.
If the court \••anted to take into consideration any fresh evidence. it !>.hould
have admitted the same in accordancx v.:ith )a\v.
So these
documentc;
ought to have been \!x.cludcd fron1 con.::.idcration. though it ,,.•as of
no
assistance to the appellants. f414 l>·FJ
(iii) There .. va..; no reason to interfere \vith the orders a.;; rcgardit
costs.
Costs arc csscntiallv in the di-.crctio11 of the courts.
l'he claim
of the appellant-; was a highly cxagµcrated one. and the bulk of the evi-
dence adduced bv them v.·as founU to be unacceptable.
Under those
circumstances. the courts thought that the ;1rpcllants should not he granted
any costs. [416 BJ
CIVlL APPELLATE JURISDICTIOK:
Civil Appeal No. 667 of
1965.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated April 28, J 961
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 180 of
1959.
G
H
..
•
•
•
. .
CHATURBHUJ v. COLLECTOR (Hegde, J.)
413
A
S. T. Desai, V. D. Mishra and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
appellants.
I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. In this appeal from the decision of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh in First Appeal No. 180 of 1959 on its file
the principal question that arises for decision is as to the market
value of the appellants' orchard acquired under the provisions
of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (to be hereinafter referred to as
the Act) in connection with the construction of Hirakud Dam in
Orissa State.
Several lands in the Raigarh District of Madhya Pradesh were
acquired by the Co!Jector of Raigarh in pursuance of the requ~st
made by the Government of Orissa. Among the lands so acqmr-
ed some of the appellants' lands were also included.
For those
lands the appellants' claimed compensation in a sum of
Rs. 7,95,770/- under various heads but the Special Land Acqui-
sition Officer under two different awards awarded to them a sum
of Rs. 59,494/6/-. The appellants did not agree to the award
made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and at their instance
the question of compensation was referred to the District Court
of Raigarh under s. 18 of the Act.
The Additional District
Judge who tried the reference in question enhanced the compen-
sation payable to the appellants to Rs. 3;29,480/-.
In particular
he valued the trees in the orchard aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.