JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RADHEY SHYAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 17-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
A 
' 
v. 
RADHEY SHYAM AND ORS. 
j 
~ 
FEBRUARY 17, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
' 
Land Acquisition Ac4 1894: Sections 11, 18, 31(3) and (4): 
Land Acquisition Of/icer/Collectm--l'ower to allot land in lieu of 
<compensation for acquired land-Held Collector has no power to allot land c 
under acquisition in lieu of compensation-Award gra11ting land in lieu of 
compensation held nullity-Objectio11 to such an award could be raised at 
execution stage. 
The Government of RllJasthao issued a Notification dated June 9, 
1960 under section 4(1) or the Rltjastban Land Acquisition Act, 1953 D 
acquiring 552 Bigbas and 8 Blswas of land for planned development of 
Jaipur city. Later by an award dated January 9, 1961 land belonging to one 
C was excluded. The respondents purchased part of the land from C. 
Subsequotly, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on January 21, 
1974 deducting the value or lb. 2131.68 towards the value or land allotted E 
to each or the respondents lo lieu of compensation awarded to them. lo 
the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the 
Civil Court confirmed the award or the Land Acquisition omcer but 
corrected certain double deduction of certain amounts made therein. 
Thereafter, some persons flied writ petitions for grant or land lo lleu or 
~ 
compensation and the respondents flied an execution to enforce the award F 
1 
of the Civil Court. The appell6nt·Development Authority raised objection 
! 
as to the executablllty or the award for allotment of the sites made lo lleu 
' 
or compensation. The Execution Court pal11y upheld that objection but, 
• 
on revision by Respondents the Division Bench or the High Court held that 
It was not permissible for the appellants to raise the objection execution G 
or the award. 
~ 
Io appeals to this Court It was contended on behalf of the appellant• 
""" 
Development Authority that the Land Acquisition Officer bad no jurlsdlc-
tioo to allot part of the acquired land, lo lieu of compensation add that, 
therefore, the award to that extent was a nullity; objection to which could H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994) 2 S.C.R. 
A be raised at any stage Including execotioo of that award. 
For the respondents it was contended that (i) under Section 31(4) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer had power to enter 
t 
into an arrangement with the land owners which power is without any 
B 
ilmltatlon though similar limitation was found In sub-Section (3) of Sec· 
tlon 31. Therefore, the award directing allotment of the Jand In lieu of 
compensation was perfectly legal; and (Ii) having allowed the award to 
.. 
become final, It was not open to the appellants to raise the contention of 
r 
lack of Jurisdiction or nullity of the award of the Collector on the execution 
side. 
c 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. In the scheme of the Act, the Laud Acquisition Officer has 
no power to create an encumbrance or right in the erstwhile owner to claim 
possession of a part of the acquired land lo lieu of compensation. Such 
D power of the Land Acquisition Officer If Is exercised would be self defeating 
and subversive to public purpose. [7-D) 
2. A reading of sub-section (4) of Section 31 lodlcates that the Land 
Acquisition Officer bas DO power Or Jurisdiction to give any land under 
acquisition or any other land In lieu or compensation. Sub-section (4) 
E though gives power to him lo the matter or payment of compensation It 
does not empower him to give any land lo lieu of compensation. Sub-sec· 
tloo (3) expressly gives power "only to aUot any other land In exchaou". 
lo other words, the land under acquisition Is not liable to be allotted in lieu 
of c6mpeosatlon except under Section 31(3), that too only to a person 
F having limited loteresL [6-G, HJ 
~ 
2.1. It Is not correct to say that while awarding compensation the 
Collector has a higher pOMr than the limited power given under sub-sec· 
tloo (3) of Section 31 because It would run counter to the scheme envisaged 
thereunder and would result In defeating the public purpose. [7 ·Al 
G 
3. Section 11 excludes by implication any power other than that given 
to the Collector by Section 11. [S·E) 
4. What is executable Is only an award under Section 26(2) namely, 
the amount awarded or the claims of the Interests determined or the 
H respective persons lo the acquired lands. Therefore, the decree cannot 
DEVEL

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