RATIAN KUMAR TANDON AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 01-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RATIAN KUMAR TANDON AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 
AUGUST 1, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Ss.4(1), 18(3) and 23(1)-Acquisition ofurba11 land with building a11d 
·trees therem~ompensation--22528 sq. yd. of land i11 city of Allahabad, 
C 
belonging to the claimant having lease-hold right in the land acquired in 
1986-Declaratio11 under s.6 of Urba11 Land (Ceili11g a11d Regulatio11) Act 
made i11 respect of the land in 1976-Held, burde11 is always on the claima11t 
to establish proper market value of trees, or la11d or building--Wlien forest 
officers estimated value of trees, unless there is contra evidence i11 that behalf, 
it cannot be said that the award of compensatio11 of Rs. 23,000 and odd given D 
by Collector's award 1vas without any evidence-When land and building are 
acquired by a notification, clabnant is not entitled to separate valuation of 
the building and the la11d-Since the State did not question the compensation 
of Rs. 8,33,000 as awarded by reference cowt and High Cowt, the same is 
co11finned-Publication of prevailing p1ices in the local 11ews paper is not the E 
evidence and the reference cou1t eJTed in relying upon the san1e-Jt also e1red 
in relying upon the sale deed of a free-hold small piece of land pmticularly 
when neither the vendor nor the vendee was exaniine~Since the State did 
F 
not question the compmsation of the land at the rate of R. 423 per sq. yd. 
detenni11ed by the High Cowt, the same is confinned-For the excess vacant 
la11d compensatio11 would be paid u11der s.11 ( 6) of the Ceiling Act-Silice 
before renewing the lease the Govemme11t have acquired the la11d and the 
claimant has got 011ly 7 years lease-hold right in the land, High Court was 
1igl1t i11 directing that compensatio11 should be apportioned in the ratio of 
50:50 to the State a11d the claimant-The limited right given to the State u11der 
sub-sectio11 (3) of s.18 is only in respect of excess compe11sation awarded by G 
the Collector-In respect of appmtiomnent of the compe11satio11 covered 
under the Ceiling Act. there is 110 need for referC11ce u/s 18(3). 
Urban La11d (Ceiling a11d Regulatio11) Act, 1976: 
Ss.6, l1(6)-l>eclaratio11 u/s 6(1) made i11 1976-Lease-hold land in H 
259 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
City of Allahabad acquired under la11d Acquisition Act in 1986-Compensa-
tio11 in respect of excess vacant land-Land owner claiming that land having 
been acquired under Land acquisition Act and possessivn thereof having been 
taken by the State, the same cannot be declared as excess vacant land and 
he is entitled to compensation under land Acquisition Act--lt was also 
B claimed that in certain matters the State Govemment had directed to drop 
the proceedings under the Ceiling Act and to proceed under land Acquisition 
Act-Held, excess urban land covered under Ceiling Act is not required to be 
de-notified as it statutorily stands vested i11 the Govemme11t-Govemme11t 
cannot be compelled to acquire such land and to pay compensation under 
the La11d Acquisition Act-Govemment instructions do not have oveniding 
C effect on the operation of the Ceiling Act and the law declared by this Court 
under Article 141 of the Constitutio11-Such instn1ctions are 011ly administra-
tive instrnctions. 
Constinitio11 of India, 1950 : 
D 
Article 141-Govemment instmctions do 11ot have oveniding effect on 
the law declared by the Supreme Court. 
17ie Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. H.E.H. the Nizam, Hyderabad JT 
(1996) 3 SC 629 and State of Gujarat a11d Ors. v. Pershottamdas Ramdas 
E Patel and 01'. [1988] 1 SCR 997, relied on. 
F 
lnder Pa,,·Jwd v. Union of India and 01~., [1994] 5 SCC 239 and Sri 
Piedade Femandes v. U11io11 of India (1994) 3· SCALE 860, helil inap-
plicable. 
M/s. Majas Land Development Corporation and Ors. v. State of 
Maharashtra a11d Ors., AIR (1983) Bombay 188; State of M.P. v. Swinder 
Kumar and Anr., [1995] 2 SCC 627 and Purslwttam Dass Tandon and Ors. 
v. State of U.P. Luck11ow a11d o,,., AIR (1987) All. 56, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10786 of 
G 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.92 of the Allahabad High 
Court in F.A. No. 147 of 1990. 
Satish Chandra, Rajesh Tandon and E.C. Vidya Sagar, for the Ap-
H pellants. 
' 
R.K TANDONv.STATE 
261 
D.V. Sehgal, Ashok Kr. Srivastava for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned coun

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