THE MANIPUR TEA CO. PVT. LTD. versus THE COLLECTOR OF HAILAKANDI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 108 · Decided: 13-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE MANIPUR TEA CO. PVT. LTD. 
v. 
THE COLLECTOR OF HAILAKANDI 
DECEMBER 13, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 18, 23 and 28. 
Land Acquisition-Compensation-Principle for determination 
C of-Tea Estate's land acquired for laying railway tracks-Compensation 
awarded by Land Acquisition Qfficel"-Enhancement of compensation by 
Reference Court-Reduction of compensation by High Court-Reliance ·· 
placed by Cowts on sale statistics-Sale deeds relating to agricultural land 5 
years prior to the date of Notification u/s. 4(1) produced by land-owners-Not 
accepted by Trial Court and High Court-Appeal before Supreme 
D Court-Held the sale statistics cannot ipso facto form a basis to determine 
the compensation-In this case the High Court and the Reference Cowt had 
correctly rejected three sale deeds produced by the appellant in determining 
the compensation which relate to the agricultural land; not the tea garden of 
estate-Having rejected the sale deeds relied on by the appellant td do justice 
E to the respondent, they relied on sale statistics relied by the Land Acquisition 
Officer-There is no ground to interfere with the approach adopted by Cowts 
below. 
Land acquisition-Determination of-Market value under section 
23(1)-Burden is on the claimants to prove by adducing cogent reliable and 
F acceptable evidence-Principle of determination of the compensation under 
section 23(1) of the Act is entirely different and distinct from the principles 
applicable in determining the compensation under Land Reforms Act. 
Land Acquisition--Escalation charges for determination of the com-
G pensation to the tea garden-There was no illegality committed by the Cowts 
below in granting the escalation at Rs. 270 per bush. 
Land Acquisition-Determination of severance charges-By reason of 
the acquisition of the land of the appellant to lay the Railway tracks, the 
contiguity of the tea estate was severed and 2/3rd of the estate has remained 
H on one side and 113 on the other-High Court found that the appellant was 
108 
MANIPUR 1EACO(P)LID. v. COLLECTOROFHAILAKANDI 
109 
required to set up a fencing and the drainage channel, an amount of Rs. A 
2, 36, 000 as estimated, would be sufficient to meet the expenditure-fl eld it 
being an estimate made by the appellant, there is no error of law warranting 
interference. 
Land acquisition--Compensation-/nterest-l'roviso to section 
28-Word 'may' has to be constrned as 'shall'-Therefore the claimants would B 
be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on enhanced compensation for one 
year and thereafter @ 15% till date of deposit in the Court. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.16967-71 
~~ 
c 
From the Judgment and Order 17.8.92 of the Assam High Court in 
.F.A. No. 67 of 1987. 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Manoj Arora, Ms. S. Hazarika and Ms. H. Wahl 
for the Appellant. 
D 
S.N. Chaudhary and S.A. Syed for the Respondent. 
/ 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
E 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the Judgment of Division 
Bench of Assam High Court, made on August 17, 1992 in First Appeal 
Nos. 67/87 and 11-14/88. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land F 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") were published on 5.9.1981, 
21:9.1982, 23.9.1982 and 24.9.1982 acquiring 123 Bighas 11 Cottahs and 13 
Chitaks of the appellants' tea Estate for laying Railway tracks. The Collec-
tor by his award dated March 19, 1985 and also by another award dated 
March 25, 1985 awarded in respect of the lands acquired a sum Rs. 
17,59,975 against the total claim of Rs. 1,77,92,238 on the computation G 
made in that behalf. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Court 
enhanced the compensation to Rs. 43,89,038 with solatium, and interest 
thereon in the sum of Rs. 67, 60,730 has been awarded as additional 
compensation. On appeal, the High Court reduced the compensation from 
Rs. 43,89,038 to Rs. 40,89,038. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judg- H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l996] SUPP.10 S.C.R. 
A 
ment, these appeals have been filed by the appellant. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, 
contends that the High Court and the Reference Court committed grievous 
error in relying upon the sale statistics earlier relied on by the Land 
Acquisition Officer without examining any witness which formed basi

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