STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. versus GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 09-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

565 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
v. 
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS. 
March 9. 1976 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
.f 
Bo1nbay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act (Bombay 39 
of 1954), ss. 8, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 22-Principles of compensatioti-Solatitun 
and interest, when payable-'Three multiples', meanin[? of. 
Land Acl!uisition Act (1 of 1894), ss. 23 and 26-Solatium, if conipensation. 
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), O. 41, r. 22-Applicability to 
tribunals. 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-Exercise of discretion under. 
On the coming into force of the Bombay Merged Territories And Areas 
)- (Jagirs Abolition) Act 1953, on and from August 1, 1954, the jagirs were 
abolished and certain properties comprised therein vested in the State. Some com-
pensation was awarded by the Jagir Abolition Officer to the jagirdars on their 
application, in respect of certain items. Oq appeal by the jagirdars, the Revenue 
Tribunal modified the award. Aggrieved by the decision, both the State and 
the jagirdars filed petitions and the High Court decided some points against the 
._ State and some against the jagirdars and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. 
Both sides appealed to this Court under Art. 136. 
On behalf of the State it was contended that : (I) compen~ation for the 
unbuilt village site lands; (2) solatium of 15% on the amount of compensation; 
and (3) interest on the amount of instalments of compensation, which V.'erc 
delayed, ~houl<l not have been awarded. The jagirdars contended that (1) the 
expression 'three multiples' in s. 11 (2) means six times and so the compensation 
should be six times the assessment and not three times as held by the High 
C'ourt; (2) the Bagyat Kas should have been included in the assessment for 
the purpose of assessing the compensation; and (3) the Tribunal had no po\Ver 
and \Vas not justified in reducing the rates of the value of the villagt: site 
lands. 
HELD : 
The appeals of the State are partly allowed on its 2nd and 3rd 
contentions and the appeals of the jagirdars are dismissed. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
( 1) The jagirdars are entitled to compensation for all unbuilt village. site 
F 
lands. 
[572F] 
Section 11(3) provides that any jagirdar having any right or interest in any 
property referred to in s. 8 shall, if he proved to the satisfaction of the Collector 
that he had any such right or interest, be entitled to compensation in the manner 
provided in clauses (i) to (iii). In these clauses there is reference only to 
3 kinds of property, but there are numerous other properties mentioned in s. 8. 
The unbuilt village site land is one such. The jagirdar Vi'Ould be entitled to 
compensation for rights or interests in them under s. 11(3), but no manner ot' 
avo'arding compensation is indicated therein. Literally the language of sub-s. (3) 
does not n1ake sense, and so, it should be understood as proviJing that the 
person whose rights had been extinguished is entitled to cOmpensation, in respect 
of the properties in which he had an interest. in accordance with the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894, but subject to the exceptions provided in clauses (i) to 
(iii). [572C-F] 
(2) The Legislature did not intend nor did it provide for the payment of 
any solatiun1 on the amount of compensation awardable to the jagirdars. [574C] 
The concept of compensation means just equivalent or market value of the 
property acquired. 
Section 23(1), Land Acquisition Act provides that in detrn 
G 
H 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
mining compensation various factors over nnd nbove the market value are to lie 
taken into account. 
Section 23(2) provides for the payment of 15% of the 
market value as solatium in addition to the market value. That the leglslature 
did r.ot intend to give any solatium to the jagirdars as compensation is clear'\_ 
from (a) the Explanation to s. 11 of the Jagirs Abolition Act, which defines 
rr1arket value, refers only to s. 23(1) and nots. 23(2), Land Acquisition Act; .J 
(b) Section 15, Jagirs Abolition Act, provides that every award under s. 13 or 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
or s. 14 shall be in the form prescribed in s. 26(1), Land Acquisition Act 
but solatium is not mentioned in the prescribed form of the award unde.r s. 26(1); 
and (c) solatium is awarded as a special compensation in consideration of the 
compulsory nature of the acquisition. 
But when Jagirs 
are 
abolished 
and • 
acquired as a measure of agrarian reform even wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.