STATE OF GUJARAT ETC. ETC. versus DAYA SHAMJI BHAI ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 25-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF GUJARAT ETC. ETC. 
v. 
DAYA SHAMJI BHAI ETC. ETC. 
AUGUST 25, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAM:V AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Ac~ 1894: Sections 11, 12, 18 and 31(1). 
Reference Cowt-Power to enhance compensation-Agreement-Land-
owner's agreeing to receive compensation in tenns of agreement and fore go 
the right of reference-Payment of compensation accordingly-Held land-
owne1:s have no 1ight to seek reference-Civil Court has not jurisdiction to go 
into adequacy of the compensation--Agreement entered under Section 11(2) 
needs no regi.stratio1~. 
D 
Indian Registration Act, 1908 : 
E 
F 
G 
Agreement under section 11 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Regist-
ration of-Held not required. 
THe respondents-land owners, whose lands were acquired, entered 
into agreements under section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
whereunder they consented to accept the compensation determined by the 
Land Acquisition Officer and 25% more thereof and agreed to forego their 
right to seek reference under Section 18. However, after accepting compen-
sation in terms of the agreements, they sought reference under section 18 
of the Act. The reference Court enhanced the compensation and rejected 
the State's reliance on the agreement on the ground that they were not 
registered under the Registration Act. On appeals preferred by State the 
High Court confirmed the judgment of the reference Court. Against the 
decision of the High Court State preferred appeals before this Court. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The contract between the owners and the Collector regard-
ing the terms to be included in the award of the Collector is conclusive and 
binds the parties. The award made under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act in terms of the agreement between the parties is an award with 
H consent obviating the necessity of reference under Section 18. [92-D; A] 
88 
• 
STATE v. DAYASHAMJIBHAI 
89 
2. The entitlement to make reference to civil court under Section A 
18(1) and within the period prescribed under sub-section (2) is condi-
tioned upon non-acceptance of the award. Under the second proviso to 
sub-section (2) of Section 31 "no person who has received the amount 
otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application 
under Section 18". Once an agreement was entered by the parties, the 
question of objection to receive Compensation under protest does not 
arise. So, the respondents have no right to seek a reference to the civil 
court under Section 18 of the Act. [91-F-H; 92-A] 
B 
3. Only a valid reference under Section 18 confers jurisdiction on the 
civil court to consider whether the compensation awarded by the Collector C 
is just and fair. Thereafter, when it finds that the Collector ought to have 
awarded higher compensation, the civil court gets jurisdiction to award 
statutory benefits on higher compensation from the date of taking posses-
sion only. In view of the specific contract made by the respondents in terms 
of Section 11(2), they are not entitled to seek a reference. Consequently, 
the civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to go into the adequacy of compen-
D 
sation awarded by the Collector or prevailing market value as on the date 
of notification under Section 4(1) to determine the compensation under 
section 23(1) and to grant statutory benefits. (92-G-H; 93-A] 
4. By operation of Section 11(4), the need for registration of the E 
agreement is obviated. (93-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8117 of 
1995 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.92 of the Gujarat High 
F 
Court in F.A. No. 17743 of 1991. 
D. Dave, N. Mukherjee and Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Cday condoned. Leave granted. 
Though notice has been served on all the respondents, none appears 
either in person or through counsel in all the appeals. 
G 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
(for short, 'the Act') was published on December 18, 1980 acquiring large 
extent of lands for the purpose of irrigation dam No. 2 Project. The land 
owners had given their consent in writing on March 11, 1983 agreeing to 
accept the compensation determined by the land Acquisition Officer and 
25 per cent more thereof and also agreed not to seek any reference under 
Section 18. The market value was determined by the Collector

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