RANVEER SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECY. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 22-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVA KIRTI SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 130 
RANVEER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECY. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 13324 of2015) 
JULY22,2016 
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.) 
La11d Acquisition Act. 1894 - s. 34 - Payment of interest -
Acquisition of appellants land by authorities - Appellant entered 
i11to an agreement under the Rules of 1997 and accepted the .agreed 
amount-compensation, without a11y protest or demand for further 
interest - Subsequently, appellant claimed interest on the ground of 
s. 34 for the period already lapsed between taking of possession 
and sig11ing of the agree111entlpay111e11t of co111pe11sation - Held: When 
the land owner agrees for a consent award and the amount of 
compensation is accepted without any protest, the remedy under 
the Act of seeking enhancement is lost as also the substantive cause 
of action vanishes - Agreement with the appellant was a package 
ll'ith regard to the compensation amount voluntarily accepted by 
the appellant without any demur - Thus, equitable considerations 
also cannot help the appellant - Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition 
(Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by 
Aweement) Rules, 1997. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Sub-section 2 of s. 11 of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 begins with a non-obstante clause which makes it free 
of the requirements of sub-section (1) if all the persons interested 
in the land agree in writing as to what matters should be included 
in the award of the Collector. Thereupon the Collector is 
competent to make an award as per agreement without making 
further enquiry. In view of such clear provision that permits 
agreement to determine all the matters to be included in the 
award, all the inclusions and omissions in the consent award must 
be treated as based upon agreement of the parties and the final 
amount determined by way of agreement must be taken as a 
completely just compensation inclusive of the statutory interest 
payable to the claimant for the concerned land at least on the 
130 
RANVEER SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECY. & 
131 
ORS. 
date of agreement. Since the agreed compensation amount is 
accepted without protest with a clear stipulation not to claim any 
additional amount, it has to be deemed that the compensation 
reflected in the consent award has taken into account all relevant 
factors including interest till the date of agreement. Moreover 
the right to seek reference fur enhancement itself gets lost by 
accepting the compensation without protest especially when there 
is an agreement that the land owner shall not claim any amount in 
addition to the amount agreed upon as compensation and shall 
accept the compensation without any protest. In such 
circumstances agreed amount has to be treated as a just 
compensation permitting no addition or substitution whatsoever. 
Thus, not only the remedy under the Act of seeking enhancement 
is lost but the substantive cause of action also vanishes when the 
land owner agrees for a consent award and the amount of 
compensation is accepted without any protest. [Para 11) [138-C-
G] 
1.2 Equitable considerations also cannot help the appellant 
because the agreed amount was paid without any delay, on the 
date of agreement itself. Notably, the award passed on the basis 
of agreement with the appellant stipulates the amount of 
compensation at Rs. 329.76 per Sq.Yd. However, in the case of 
other claimants under the same Notification who had not entered 
into such agreement, the rate was fixed at Rs. 50.57 per Sq.Yd. 
with 30% solatium and 12% interest from the date of taking 
possession. Thus, the agreement with the appellant was a package 
with regard to the compensation amount voluntarily accepted by 
the appellant without any demur. [Para 12) [138-H; 139-A-B) 
1.3 In view thereof and particularly in view of judgments of 
this Court in the case of *Daya Slwmji Bhai's case and in 
**Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar's case, there is no error in the 
order of the High Court rejecting the claim of the appellant. [Para 
13) [139-C] 
*State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Daya Shamji Bhai and 
Ors. 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 88 : 1995 (5) SCC 746; 
**State of Karnataka and Am: v. Sangappa Dyavappa 
Biradar and Ors. 2005 (2) SCR 1197 : 2005 (4) SCC 
264 - relied on. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1-1 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 447: 1991 (1) SCC 262- refe

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