ISHWARLAL PREMCHAND SHAH AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 15-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ISHWARLAL PREMCHAND SHAH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
MARCH 15, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 5-A, 11(2) (As applicable 
in State of Gujarat), 16, 23( 1-A), 23(2) and 28-Fonn NO. 14 presc1ibed 
under Rules. 
Land Acquisition-Compensation-Solatium and interest-Entitlement 
to-Land acquired for benefit of G.I.D.C.-Agreement betwcm land owners 
and beneficiary-Owners agreeing to accept compensation @ Rs. 22,587 per 
hectare inclusive of solarium and additional benefits payable under the 
Act-Omtention that agrnement not as per Fann No. 14 presoibed under 
D Ru/es-Award passed in tem1s of the agreement-Challenge to the validity of 
award-Claim for solatium, interest and additional benefits-Held in the 
circunistances it cannot be said that the essential requ/renients of section 
11(2) were not complied with-Award passed was not illegal---Fonn No. 14 
would not be relevant in a case where the agreement is between the land-
E owners and interested pe1wns and beneficiary-in view of the clauses in the 
agreement land-owners held not entitled to the payment by way of solatium, 
interest and additional amount under the provisions of the Act. 
F 
G 
State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Daya Shamji Bhai & Ors., [1995) 5 SCC 
746, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal No. 6896 of 
1996 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.93 of the Gujarat High 
Court in S.C.A. No. 4981 of 1991. 
R.F. Nariman, Jatin Jhaveri and H.J. Javeri for the Appellants. 
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Mrs. H. Wahi, Ms. N. Mukherjee, Ms. Anip 
Sachthey, J.P. Pathak, H. Munshi and C.D. Singh for the Respondents. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
510 
JSHWARLAL PREM CHAND SHAHv. STATE 
511 
Leave granted. 
A 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1of1894 
(for short, the 'Act') was published on August 2, 1984 acquiring the lands 
situated in village Sarigam, District Bulsar in Gujarat State for industrial B 
purpose. Possession also was taken after dispensing with the enquiry under 
Section 5-A. It is not necessary to dilate on the proceedings taken earlier 
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Suffice it to state that there was an 
agreement between the parties that an award could be made under Section 
11(2) of the Act pursuant to which the Land Acquisition Officer on June C 
4, 1991 made the award in terms of the agreement. The appellant chal-
lenged the correctness of the award by filing the writ petition which was 
dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated September 10, 
1993. Thus these appeals by special leave. 
This Court by order dated February 28, 1994 issued notice confined D 
to the question whether the appellants are entitled to solatium, interest and 
additional amount under Sections 23(2), 28 and 23 (1-A) of the Act. The 
respondents have filed their counter-affidavit contending that in view of the 
agreements entered by the appellants on January 2, 1981 and subsequent 
agreement dated March 8, 1985, which have been filed as sample agree-
E 
ments this Court, the appellants are not entitled to the payment of interest, 
solatium and additional amounts under the Act. 
Shri R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel-
lants, contended that the award passed by the Collector is not in conformity 
with Section 11(2) of the Act in as much as the agreements were not F 
executed before the Collector and they were not in the prescribed form. 
He drew our attention to Form No. 14, prescribed by the Rules and 
submitted that as disclosed by the Form itself, such an agreement has to 
be executed by owner of the land in presence of the Land Acquisition 
Officer and has to be signed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the 
present case, the agreements executed in 1985 were between the owners of G 
the land and GIDC for whose benefit the lands were acquir(d! They were 
not signed in presence of the Land Acquisition Officer nor did the Land 
Acquisition Officer put his signature thereon. Therefore, the award passed 
by the Collector cannot be said to be an award under Section 11(2) of the 
Act and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to payment of solatium, H 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A interest and additional benefits payable under the Act. We do not find any 
substance in this connection. 
B 
In this case, the agreements were between the 

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