LexNEW REVIERA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY versus SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NEW REViERA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY A v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DECEMBER 4, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] B Land Acquisition Act, 189.f-Sections 4, 8, 11-A, 16, 18, 23 fl], 31 [3]. Acquisition-Award made-Compensation paid-Reference proceed- ings pending for detennination of adequate compensation-Directions sought C for not to eject till proceedings become final-Held, once the award has been made and compensation has been paid the LAO is entitled to take possession and the possession thereby stands vested in the State free from all encumbran- ces-State not obliged to provide alternative site-No directions can be issued not to eject the appellants till the reference proceedings become final. D Constitution of India, 1951>--Artic/e 21-Applicability of in respect of Compulsory Acquisition of land by Stat1'-0wners unwilling to offer their lands-Whether violates Article 21-Held : No-The Land Acquisition Act provides solatium for compulsory acquisition. The acquisition is in accord- ance with law. Article 21 will not apply when the State is exercising its power E of eminent domain. Therefore the acquisition does not violate right to livelihood or right to shelter or dignity of person. Practice and Procedure-New plea-Question raised before High Court but not argued-Held, mixed question of facts or law cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in appeal. F The Land Acquisition Officer issued a notification to the petitioner Housing Society to acquire their land for public purpose. A declaration was made and the award was passed. Thereafter, the LAO determined the compensation at a sum of Rs. 13,11,2899.00 for the entire society. Dissatis· G lied with the amount of compensation offered by the LAO a reference under Section 18 was made which was pending for decision in the Court. In the meantime the petitioner filed a writ petition. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Acquisition was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as it violated the dignity of the person and deprived H 169 170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A his right to shelter and also made him shelterless. B c Dismissing the appeal and the Writ Petition, this Court HELD : 1. Once the award has been made and compensation has been paid or deposited under S.31 of the Land Acquisition Act, the LAO ls entitled to take possession and the possession thereby stands vested in the State under S.16 of the Act free from all encumbrances. (172-E) 2. The State with a view to serve public purpose is entitled to acquire the land by exercising its powers of eminent domain and the Land Acquisi· tion Officer is empowered under s.23 of the Act to determine the compen· sation to the land. Under the Scheme of the Act if the owner is dissatisfied with the determination of compensation made by the Collector, a reference is provided for and the court would on adduction of evidence by the parties determine proper compensation payable to the acquired land and burden is on the claimant to prove that the compensation offered is inadequate D and seek determination of compensation. (173-D-E) E F 3. Right to shelter is undoubtedly a fundamental right. A person may be rendered shelterless but it may be to serve a large public purpose. Far from saying that he will be rendered shelterless the Court did not cir· cumscribe the State power of eminent domain, even though a person whose land is being acquired compulsorily for the public purpose is rendered shelterless. If that is so no land can be acquired under the Act for any public purpose since in all such cases the owners/interested persons would be deprived of his property. He is deprived of it according to law. Since the owner is unwilling for the acquisition of his property for public purpose, S.23 (2) provides solatium for compulsory acquisition against his wishes. Therefore, the acquisition for public purpose cannot violates Ar· tide 21 of the Constitution or the right to livelihood or right to shelter or dignity of person. (173-G-H, 174-A] 4. It is settled law that the Court would consider only matter dealt G with or stated in the order of the High Court. Several grounds might have been raised, but it often happens that only a few would be argued ""hen the case was heard. The supreme Court cannot look into the averments made in the affidavit filed by the parties. Under these circumstances, it can be assure
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.