KIRAN TANDON versus ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 23-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
'j 
KIRAN TANDON 
v. 
ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 
MARCH 23, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND 
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
land Acquisition Act, 1894-Seclions 4(1). 23 & 30-Civil Procedure 
Code. 1908-0rder 1 Rule JO Sub-rule (2)-Premises consisting of land, 
building and trees given on lease lo claimant by State Government-Notification 
issued for acquisition-Award of compensation passed-Claimant 1ltaking 
references before Reference Court claiming higher amount of compensation 
and for entitlement of full compensation on ground of subsisting of lease at 
A 
B 
c 
the time of taking possession of the premises-Reference Court holding in 
favour of the claimant-High Court reduced the amount of compensation and D 
apportioned it into half between the claimanl and State Government-
Correctness of-Held, ji-om the evidence on record, the lease had expired at 
Lhe time pf taking over of possession ji-om Lhe claimanl and had not been 
renewed-Reduction of amount of compensalion by High Court is upheld-
Compensation apporlioned between claimant and State Government in the 
ratio of 20:80-Transfer of Property Act. 1882. 
E 
The premises in question consisting of land, building and trees, was 
given on lease by State Government to claimant-appellant. At the instance 
of respondent-Authority, a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published for acquiring the premises. F 
The Authority took possession of the premises from the claimant. Land 
Acquisition Officer made an award fixing market value of the land at Rs. 
72.50 per square yard and for the building and the trees at Rs. 3,48,000 
and Rs. 23, 100 respectively. The claimant made two references to 
Reference Court being dissatisfied with the award. A third reference Under 
Section 30 of the Act was also made by the claimant as to apportionment G 
of the compensation between the claimant and the State Government. The 
Reference Court, by separate orders, fixed the market rnlue of the land 
at Rs.500 per square yard and for the building and the trees at Rs. 
I 0,96,842 and Rs. 50,000 respectively. With regard to the third reference, 
467 
H 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12004] 3 S.C.R. 
A the Reference Court held that the entire amount of compensation is 
,;,,. 
payable to the claimant. 
The Authority preferred two appeals before High Court impleading 
'"' 
the State Government as proforma respondent. The State Government 
B 
moved an application before the High Court for transposing it as appellant 
in the appeals. The High Court allowed the application of the State 
Government. The High Court upheld the market value of the land fixed 
by the Reference Court but with deduction of 20 per cent towards the cost 
of internal development and fixed the value of the building and trees at 
Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 23,000 respectively. The High Court further held that 
c the amount of compensation should be apportioned equally amongst the 
claimant and the State Government since the period of lease expired within 
a few days of taking over possession by the Authority. 
The claimant, in appeal before this Court, contended that the 
Authority, being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 
D could itself raise objections on behalf of the State Government and that 
the High Court was in error in transposing the State Government as an 
appellant; that neither the Authority nor the State Government filed an 
appeal before the High Court against the Reference Court order of 
,...,. 
entitlement/apportionment of compensation; that the High Court was in 
E 
error in apportionment of compensation between the claimant and the 
State Government without an appeal filed by the Authority or the State 
Government; that the order passed by the Reference Court, being not 
challenged, has become final and thus the claimant is entitled to the entire 
amount of compensation; that allowance of 20 per cent deduction on 
account of internal development from the compensation awarded by the 
F Reference Court is not justified; that the State Government had renewed 
the lease in favour of the claimant and the lease was subsisting at the time 
/.._ .. 
taking possession; that the amount of compensation fixed by the High 
Court for the buildings and trees is not justified; and that the award of 
cost by the High Court was not justified. 
G 
The Authority, in its appeal before the Court, contended that the 
amount of compensation awarded 

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