STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. versus SANGAPPA DYAVAPPA BIRADAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 1197 · Decided: 30-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SANGAPPA DY AV APPA BIRADAR AND ORS. 
MARCH 30, 2005 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
ss. 11 (2) and (I 8)-Consent award-Compensation received by land 
holders in full satisfaction of their claim-Applications for reference in terms C 
of s. I 8 for enhancement of compensation-Held, not maintainable-Cond(tion 
precedent for maintaining application for reference u/s I 8 is non-acceptance 
of award by the awardee-For passing a consent award, it is not necessary 
to comply with provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution-Nor an agree1i1ent 
between the parties need be strictly in terms of a prescribed formqt- D 
Constitution of India-Article 299-Government contract-Deeds and 
documents-Agreement-F ormat-Estoppel. 
The appellant-State Government, for the purpose of acquiring land 
for construction of a canal, entered into negotiations with the responde:Ot-
land-owners as regards price of the land. Resultantly consent awards w~re E 
passed and compensation was received by the landowners in full 
satisfaction of their claim. Later, the landowners filed applications for 
reference to civil court in terms ofs.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 
claiming enhanced compensation. The Collector rejected the applicatio~s. 
Single Judge of the High Court also dismissed the writ petitions of the F 
landowners. However, the Division Bench allowed their writ appeal. 
Aggrieved, the State Government filed the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. A right of a landholder to obtain an order of referem:e G 
would arise only when he has not accepted the award. Once such award 
is accepted, no legal right in him survives for claiming a reference to th.e 
civil court. An agreement between the parties as regards the value of the 
lands acquired by the State is binding on the parties, unless it is set aside 
in an appropriate proceeding by a competent court. Even in the writ 
1197 
H 
1198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A petitions, the prayers made by the respondents were for quashing the order 
passed by the Collector declining to make a reference u/s. 18 and for 
issuance of a direction upon him to refer the matter to the civil court. The 
question as regards the validity of the agreements had not been raised 
before the High Court. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction 
B under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thus, could not have 
substituted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer by reason 
of the impugned judgment. (1202-F-H; 1203-A-BI 
1.2. The respondents having accepted the award without any demur 
were estopped and precluded from maintaining an application for 
C reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act. Besides, they also waived their 
right to file any application for enhancement of the amount of 
compensation. It is also trite that by reason of such agreement, the right 
to receive amount by way of solatium or interest etc. can be waived. 
However, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that in terms of the consent 
awards, the amount of compensation included solatium and additional 
D market value. (1201-G-H; 1202-A; 1203-D-EI 
1.3. Keeping in view the fact that the condition precedent for 
maintaining application for refer~nce under s.18 is non-acceptance of the 
award by the awardee, the Division Bench of the High Court acted illegally 
and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgment. The Single 
E Judge was right in concluding that the writ petitions were not 
maintainable. (1205-G-HI 
State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Daya Shamji Bhai and Ors., (19951 5 SCC 
746 and Jshwar/al Premchand Shah and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 
F 119961 4 sec 174, relied on. 
Assam Railways & Trading Co. Ltd. v. The Collector of lakhimpur and 
Anr., (19761 3 SCC 24, held inapplicable. 
2. An award under the Act is passed either on consent of the parties 
G or on adjudication of rival claims. For the purpose of passing a consent 
award, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 299 
of the Constitution of India. An agreement between the parties need not 
furthermore be strictly in terms of a prescribed format. (1203-C-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2266-2268 of 
H 2005. 
~ 
, 
STATE v. SANGAPPADYAVAPPABIRADAR[SINHA,J.] 
119Q 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.2003 of the Karnataka High A 
Court in W.A. No. 250 I, 2500 and 1677 of 2000. 
Sanja

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