LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE versus SHRI K. N. PALSHIKAR, INDORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE v. SHRIK.N.PALSHIKAR,INDORE September 6, 1968 B [S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] c D E F Madhya Bharat Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, ss. 305, 387, 392-- APplication for fixation of compensation for land acquired lry munici- pality--Soladum whether payable in addition to compensation-High Court in revision whether can consider question of sufficiency of compe,.. sation as fixed by District Judge-Municipality whether can withdraw from acquisition proceedings. The appellant corporation in accordance with its Road Widening Scheme sought to acquire some of the land belonging to the respondent. The respondent was not satisfied with the compensation offered by the appellant or awarded by the arbitrators, and under s. 387(4) and (5) of the Madhya Bharat Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 he filed an applica- tion for fixation of compensation in the Court of the District Judge, Indore. The appellant in its reply submitted that the compensation awarded by the arbitrator was too low. The Additional District Judge rejected an application filed by the appellant for withdrawing its claim over a portion of the land in question. He fixed compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. 'ft. with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the delivery of the possession, and also awarded a sola- tium of 15 % to the respondent. The revision application filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge by the Corporation was dis- missed by the High Court. On the question of compensation the High Court held that it could not interfere with the order of the Additional District Judge as he had committed no irregularity in the exercise df his jurisdic- tion. By special leave the Corporation appealed to this Court. The ques- tions that fell for consideration were ( i) whether the Corporation was entitled under law to withdraw from acquisition proceedings, (ii) whether the respondent was entitled under the Act to a solatium in addition to the compensation, (iii) whether the High Court was right in refusing to go into the~ question of sufficiency of compensation. HELD : (i) There was no provision in the Act for enabling the Corporation to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings. 1n fact there is automatic vesting df land in the Corporation under s. 305 once the requisite conditions were satisfied. [17 B-C] (ii) The Additional District Judge was right in awarding 15% sola- tium. [19 E) The Borough Municipality of Ahmedabad v. 'Javendra Vajubhai Divatis, I.LR. [1937) Born. 632, approved and applied. (iii) The High Court could not in a revision under s. 392 go into q_uestions of fact and determine the amount of compensation and it was nght in declining to go into the question. Even if the powers under s. 392 are wider than those under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure H they do not extend to determining questions of fact. [19 G) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1137 and 1138 of 1965. 13 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S.C.R. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated O~tober 12, 1962 and December 19, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Civil Revision Nos. 195 and 497 of 1962 respectively. B. P. Jhanjharia, and P. C. Bhartari, for the appellant (in both the appeals) . P. K. Saksena and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent (in both the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment oi' the Madhya Pradesh High Court in two Civil Revisions, Civil Revision No. 195 of 1962 and Civil Revision No. 497 of 1962. These revisions came to be filed in the High Court in the following circumstances. On January 21, 1961, the respondent K. N. Palshikar- hereinafter referred to as the applicant-filed an application under ss. 387 ( 4) and ( 5) of the Madhya Bharat Municipal Corporation Act, 19 5 6-hereinafter referred to as the Act-in the Court of District Judge, Indore. He alleged that the Municipal Corpora- tion by its memo No. 816 dated October 30, 1959, had informed him that in accordance with the Road Widening Scheme a set back of total area of 1455.1 sq. ft. had been cut down from his land comprised in House No. 1 (New No. 38) on Road No. l, Choti Gwaltoli No. 1, Indore, and that the Municipal Corporation proposed to give him compensation only at the rate of Rs.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.