STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus SARDAR PUSHPENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 27-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
~ 
v. 
SARDAR PUSHPENDRA SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953-Section +-Acquisition of 
.. 
land-Determination of Compensati01t-Land owners governed by Land Ceil-
ing Laws-Ceiling proceedings pending in courts-Payment of compensation 
c made subject to decision in ceiling cases-Direction issued to Ceiling 
Authorities to take immediate action-LA 0 to work out amount of compen-
sation and make payment expeditiously. 
By a notification issued u/s 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 
1953, land was acquired for defence purposes. While the Land Acquisition 
D Officer determined the amount of compensation payable for the acquired 
lands, it was observed that the ceiling proceedings were since pending 
either in the High Court or in the Supreme Court, it was not possible to 
decide the amounts of compensation payable to the respondents, since the 
surplus lands were yet to be identified. Some of the areas were in excess 
E 
of ceiling area under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the Rajasthan 
Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. The notification 
therunder was published on April 1, 1966 u/s 30-E of 1955 Act. Thereby the 
surplus land under the Acts stood vested in the State w.e.f. April 1, 1966. 
But the actual extent of the lands which the respondents were entitled to 
F 
retain and which they had to surrender as surplus, was pending in the 
courts. Therefore, the LAO stated in the award that the payment of 
compensation would be made to such land owners who were not affected 
"-
by the Ceiling Law prevailing in the State of Rajasthan. 
Challenging this part of Award, the land owners filed writ petitions. 
G Allowing the petitions, High Court held that the Land Acquisition Officer 
could not have deferred the payment of compensation till the ceiling cases 
were decided. The LAO was directed to make payment of the amount of 
compensation determined u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act to each of the 
petitionets who might be entitled for the same under the award. 
• 
H 
These appeals were filed against the.judgment of the High Court. 
780 
STATEOFRAIASTHAN v. S.P.SINGH 
781 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : l.l. In the instant case since the land owners were governed 
by the Ceiling laws and as the ceiling proceedings were pending in the 
Courts, the LAO while making the award, could not decide to which extent 
A 
or the land he could make the award for the payment or compensation. He, 
therefore, stated that such payment would be subject to the decision by the B 
High Court or this court in the ceiling cases. It is informed that this Court 
had already disposed or the cases of the respondents under ceiling law and 
so the matter, had to, necessarily go back to the ceiling authorities to 
determine the excess area which the land owners were liable to surrender 
after opting to retain the labd within ceiling limit for which they would be c 
entitled to obtain payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition 
Act. Until that was determined, the question of payment of compensation 
would remain uncertain and in a nabulous state. Considering from this 
perspective, the High Court was not justified in giving the impugned 
directions. [783-E-G] 
1.2. The Ceiling Authorities are directed to take immediate action 
under the Ceiling law; give notices to the land owners, calling upon them 
to exercise their option of retaining the land within the ceiling limit and 
D 
to surrender the lands in excess of ceiling areas. To the extent of surplus 
lands, the need to make payment of their market value under the Rajas-
E 
than Land Acquisition Act does not arise. The amount payable for such 
surplus land would be as was perscribed under the Land Ceiling Act. If 
the ceiling authorities had already done this exercise, then the need to 
make fresh determination does not arise. [784-A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.1760-82 F 
of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.87 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.W.P. Nos. 65, 53, 55, 60, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, ·75, 76, 54, 67, 
68, 78, 56, 72, 59, 51, 52, 73 & 77 of 1982. 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellants. 
A.K. Sen, K.B. Rohatgi and Ms. Aparna Rohatgi for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
j 1994] 3 S.C.R. 
In December 1971, an extent of 2519 Bighas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.