JAI KRISHAN (D) TR. LRS. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 996 · Decided: 01-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 996 
JAi KRISHAN (D) TR. LRS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5889-5893 OF 2014) 
JULY 01, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
ss.23(1), 23(1A), 23(2), 28 -Acquisition of 36 acre of land 
in Mussorie - For extension of Lal Bahadur Shastri National 
Academy - Award of compensation - Enhanced by reference 
court - High Court applying principle of belting area held that 
0 land in Mussorie is sloppy and hilly and, therefore, for 
assessing true market value, flat rate cannot be applied for 
entire 36 acres and also rejected claim of 12% additional 
compensation u/s.23(1A) and interest @ 15% p.a. as 
provided under proviso to s.28 - Held: High Court noticed thai 
Mussoorie is an important tourist place and it is the land of 
E immense potential value, but without any basis or pleadings, 
presumed that total land in Mussoorie is sloppy and hilly -
High Court also accepted that the market value of the land 
in question is Rs. 54, 8961- per acre as decided by the 
reference court; therefore in absence of any pleading on the 
F part of State, it was not open for the High Court to apply the 
principle of belting area - It is not disputed that the site of new 
town of the acquired land is almost at the same elevation as 
Mussoorie as it has been developed as a Hill resort and has 
immense potential value - It was adjacent to the Lal Bahadur 
G Shastri National Academy, which was the beneficiary of such 
acquisition - For the said reason, the part of the impugned 
judgment in so for as it related to the valuation of land is set 
aside and the award passed by the reference court is upheld 
- The reference court awarded enhanced compensation but 
H 
996 
JAi KRISHAN (D) TR. LRS. v. STATE OF 
997 
UTTARAKHAND 
deposited the amount in the Court after expiry of one year -
A 
In the circumstances, the appellants are also entitled to 
interest@ 15% p.a. under proviso to s.28 of the Act - High 
:court failed to notice that the provisions of s.23(1A) of the Act 
'are mandatory and the claimants-appellants are also entitled 
to 12% enhanced compensation for the period commencing 
B 
from the date of publication of Notification uls. 4 of the Act. 
ss.23(1), 23(1A), 23(2), 28 - In the scheme of the Act, it 
is seen that the award of compensation is at different stages 
- The first stage occurs when the award is passed - Obviously, 
the award takes in all the amounts contemplated by ss.23(1), 
23(1-A), 23(2) and the interest contemplated by s.34 of the 
c 
Act - The second stage occurs on a reference u/s. 18 of the 
Act -
When the reference court awards enhanced 
compensation, it has necessarily to take note of the enhanced 
amounts payable uls.23(1), s.23(1-A), s.23(2) and interest on 
D 
the enhanced amount as provided in s. 28 of the Act and costs 
in terms of s. 27 - The Collector has the duty to deposit these 
amounts pursuant to the deemed decree thus passed - This 
has nothing to do with the earlier deposit made or to be made 
under and after the award - If the deposit made, falls short of 
E 
the enhancement decreed, there can arise the question of 
appropriation at that stage, in relation to the amount enhanced 
on the reference. 
A Notification under Section 4 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 14th September, 
1977 for the purpose of acquiring land measuring 36 
acres situated at Glenmire Estate, Cosycot and 
Cosynook in Mussoorie. The acquisition was so made for 
F 
the purpose of extension of Lal Bahadur Shastri National 
G 
Academy, Mussoorie. The Special Land Acquisition 
Officer determined the compensation at Rs. 4.89 Lacs. 
The appellant-claimants filed reference under Section 18 
of the Act. 
The reference court enhanced the amount of 
H 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A compensation of land from Rs.1.80 lacs to Rs.19.76 lacs 
and that of trees from Rs.1.05 lacs to Rs.4 lacs. Aggrieved, 
the State filed appeal before the High Court. The High 
Court applied the principle of Belting area and held that 
the land in Mussorie is sloppy and hilly and, therefore, for 
B assessing true market value, flat rate cannot be applied 
for entire land of 36 acres. The High Court also rejected 
the claim of 12% additional compensation under Section 
23(1A) and interest @ 15% per annum as provided under 
proviso to Section 28 of the Act. The instant appeal was 
c filed challenging the order of the High Court. 
Partly

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