ISHWAR DUTT versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 903 · Decided: 02-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ISHWARDUTT 
A 
v. 
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR. 
AUGUST 2, 2005 
[ASH OK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition: 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
c 
Sections 4 and 18-Compensation amount-Interest on-Res judiCata-
Estoppel-Road construction plan-Possession of lands of large number of 
villages taken over for construction of road-No steps taken to formally 
acquire the land-Public interest petition filed-High Court directed 
completion of the acquisition proceedings and pay the petitioners interest @ D 
I 2% per annum from the date of taking over of possession till the date of 
payment of interim compensation and of final compensation, if there was 
enhancement-ft was also held that the aforesaid interest payable was in the 
nature of equitable compensation and such interest shall be in addition to 
the compensation, solatium and interest at the statutory rate-Thereafter, 
notification issued under S. 4-Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market E 
value of the land at a certain rate-Apart from the statut01y benefits of 
solatium etc. landowners were also awarded interest @ 12% from the date 
of taking over of possession till the date of payment-Landowners filed 
application under S. 18 for reference-District Judge awarded enhanced 
compensation-On appeal, High Court, while upholding the amount of 
compensation, set aside the claim of interest @ 12% per annum granted by F 
the earlier order of the same High Court-Correctness of-Held: The award 
of the Land Acquisition Officer directing payment of additional interest had 
attained finality-Therefore, the principle a/res judicata/ul/y applied to the 
facts of the instant case-Hence, High Court judgment set aside-Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908, S. 11. 
G 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ petition-Res judicata-Principle-Applicability-
Held: ls applicable to writ proceedings. 
903 
I-I 
A 
904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Section 107-Power of appellate court-Scope-Held: Although High 
Court has wide power under S 107, it could not go outside the pleadings 
and make out a new case. 
B 
The possession of land owned by the appellants along with lands of a 
large number of villages was taken over in the year 1968 for a Road 
Construction Plan but no steps were taken to formally acquire the land by 
issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Therefore, a public interest writ petition was filed before the High Court ~hich 
by a judgment dated 9.9.1985 directed the respondents to complete the 
C acquisition proceedings within a time frame and further directed them to pay 
to the writ petitioners interest@ 12% per annum from the date of taking 
over of possession till the date of payment of interim compensation and of final 
compensation, ifthere was enhancement. It was als'o held that the aforesaid 
interest payable was in the nature of equitable compensation and such interest 
D shall be in addition to the compensation, solatium and interest at the statutory 
rate. Thereafter, the respondents issued the notification under Section 4 of 
the Act. 
E 
F 
G 
The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 31.1.1991 filing 
the market value of the land at a certain rate. Apart from the statutory benefits 
of solatium etc. the landowners were also awarded interest@ 12% per annum 
from the date of taking over of possession till the date of payment as directed 
by the High Court. Being aggrieved against the market value fixed by the 
Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants filed an application seeking 
reference under Section 18 of the Act to the District Judge. The District 
Judge enhanced the market value. On appeal, the High Court, while upholding 
the enhanced market value, set aside the claim of the appellants for interest 
@ 12% per annum granted by the earlier order of the Division Bench of the 
same High Court. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the High Court issued a writ of 
mandamus. It is also not in dispute that the direction of the High Court was 
acted upon. The principle of resjudicata would not only apply in different 
proceedings arising out of the same cause of action but would also apply in 
different stages of the same proceedings. As the judgment and order dated 
H 9.9.1985 passed by the High Court attained finality, the respondents could 
ISHWAR DUTT v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR 
905 
~ ... 
not have r

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