SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS. versus CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 11-03-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

603 
SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR. 
MARCH 11 , 1986 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND D.P. MADON, JJ.] 
~ 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226. 
Land Acquisition Act., 1894 -. Sections 11, 18, 25 and 
50(2). 
Award of Collector under s.11 -
Whether Government, 
Company or local authority can seek a reference under s. 18, 
except on grounds of fraud, corruption or collusion - Whether 
petition under Article 226 filed by Government or anyone 
claiming through it, 
challenging 
the Collector's 
order 
declining to make reference under s.18 maintainable. 
Pursuant to the awards made under s. 11 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 
1894 by 
the Collector determining the 
compensation proposed to be paid to appellants for the 
acquisition of their lands, the appellants sought reference 
under s.18 for enhancement of compensation. 
The Central Ware-hoiising Corporation, at whose instance 
the land was acquired, also felt aggrieved by the amount of 
r· compensation determined 
by 
the Collector and 
sought a 
reference to the Civil. Court under s .18 for reducing the 
amount. The Collector rejected this request on the ground that 
such a reference was barred by the proviso to s.50(2) of the 
Act. 
In the writ petition under Article 226, the Corporation 
challenged the awards. The High Court set aside the awards and 
itself determined the compensation at a reduced rate. 
Allowing the appeals of the land-owners to this Court, 
HELD : 1. The High Court was wrong in entertaining the 
writ petitions challenging awards made by the Collector under 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G • 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G. 
H 
604 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 1 s.c.R. 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and claiming that the lllOOunt 
awarded was excessive. (609 F] 
---
2. The scheme of the Act is that, apart from fraud, 
corruption or collusion, the amount of compensation awarded by 
the Collector under s.11 may not be questioned in any 
proceeding 
either by the Government or by the Company or 
Local Authority at whose instance the acquisition is made. 
Section 50(2) and s. 25 lead to that inevitable cqnclusion. 
What may not be done under the provisions of the Act may not 
be permitted to be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the 
High Court under Article 226. Article 226 is not meant to 
avoid or circumvent the processes of the law and the 
provisions of the statute. (607 E-<;] 
3. When S. 50(2) expressly bars the company or local 
authority at whose instance acquisit!on is made from demanding 
a reference under s .18 notwithstanding that 
such company or 
local authority may be allowed to adduce evidence before the 
Collector, and when s.25 expressly prohibits the Court from 
reducing the amount of compensation while dealing with the 
reference under s.18, it is clearly not permissible for the 
company or local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the 
High Court under Article 226 to challenge the amount to 
compensation awarded by the Collector and to have it reduced. 
[ 607 G-H; 608 A] 
4, The Collector, in making an award, acts as an agent 
. of the Government, and the legal character of the award made i 
by the Collector is that of a tender or of fer by him on behalf 
of the Government and, therefore, the Government or anyone who 
could but claim through the Government cannot question the, 
award apart from fraud, corruption or collusion. 608 C-E) 
l!.zra v. Seci:etaey of State for India, (32 Indian Appelas 
93 " I.L.R. 32, Calcutta 605); Barish Ciandra v. Deputy Laud 
Acquisition Officer, (1962) 1 S,C,R. 676; ~ 
Basnidd1n 
' ' 
v. State of Mabarashtra, (1979) 2 S.C.R. 265 at 274; llnnicipal ._ 
C'A>rporation of the City of ~al:Jrad v. Owndnlal Sbaaaldas 
Patel & OJ:s,, [1971] 2 SCC 821 relied upon. 
Abdul Karia Allarkha v. State of Rajasthan, A.l.R, 1982 
SC 61; TOllll blproveent Trust, Gwalior v. Sahajirao., A.I.R. 
1978 MP 218 distinguished. 
S. KUMAR v. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING [ CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. ] 
605 
_ __,, 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal Nos. 928-
930 of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17th January, 1983 of 
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition Nos. 397, 540 
and 566 of , 1980. 
L.N. Sinha, T.U. Mehta, B.R.L. Iyengar and P.P. Juneja 
. _.,for the Appellants. 
K.C. Mittal, M.C. Bhandari, Miss Asha Rani Jain and Tara 
Chand Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
alillNAPPA REDDY, J. These appeals by special leave of 
this Court raise the same question a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.