THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus D.N. SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 13-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
D.N. SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
·' 
NOVEMBER 13,1997 
B 
· [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
, . ._Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 11(/) Proviso-Acquisition of 
land-Compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer-Approval of-
C Power of Commissioner to reduce the award amount while granting 
approval~Held, Commissioner can exercise the Powers-Matter remanded 
to High Court. 
The respondents were claimants under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
The dispute before the High Court was on the point, whether the 
D Commissioner exercising power under proviso to section 11 of the Act while 
granting approval to the proposal of the Land Acquisition Collector regarding 
the award of compensation to the claimants could reduce the suggested 
amount for different categories of lands sought to be acquired. The High 
Court relying upon its earlier decision held that the Commissioner has no 
such power. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I. The Commissioner can exercise powers under section 11(1). 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court's decision cannot be 
sustained as the decision relied upon by it has been upset by this Court in 
F State of Bihar & Ors. v. Prem Kumar Singh's case*. (141-B; El 
*State of Bihar & Ors. v. Prem Kumar Singh, Civil Appeal arising out 
of S.L.P. (C) No. 7837 of 1993 decided on 30.11.1993, relied on. 
2. The matter is remanded to the High Court to proceed further in 
G accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. (142-C( 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7695 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.92 of the Patna High Court in 
C.W.J.C. No. 9137of1991. 
8.8. Singh for the Appellants. 
140 
.. 
STATE OF BIMAR v. D.N. SINGH [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 
141 
A.P. Singh and K.N.Rai for the Respondents. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal. 
B 
The short question is whether the Commissioner exercising powers 
under the proviso to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, I 894 ('the Act' 
for short), while granting approval to the proposal of the Land Acquisition 
Collector regarding the award of compensation to the claimants could reduce 
the suggested amount for different categories of lands sought to be acquired. C 
The High Court relying upon its earlier decision has taken a view that 
the Commissioner has no such power. It is true that the proviso to Section 
11 lays down that no award shall be made by the Collector under sub--
section (I) of Section I I of the Act without the previous approval of the 
appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may 
authorise in this behalf and acting on the said proviso thf' State of Bihar by 
notification dated March 13, 1995 had autqorised the Commissioner of the 
Division in such class of cases where the toful compensation exceeds Rupees 
Five Lacs but does not exceed Rupees Fifteen Lacs, to be the authority under 
the proviso to Section I 1(1) of the Act. The High Court's decision cannot be 
sustained for the simple reason that the view which appealed to the High 
Court relying upon its earlier decision has been upset by this Court in its 
decision dated 30th November I 993 rendered in Civil Appeal arising out of 
S.L.P. (c) No. 7837of1993. Following the said decision it must be held that 
D 
E 
the Commissioner could have exercised powers under Section 11 (I) of the 
Land Acquisition Act. 
F 
However, that would not be the end of the matter. Learned counsel for 
the respondents submitted that according to him, as the lands acquired in this 
case were about Ac. 1.15 gunths, the total award offered by the Collector 
would not be Rs. 5 lacs but would be much less. Therefore, even assuming G 
that the Commissioner had authority to decide the question under the proviso 
to Section 11 (I), if he was not the competent authority he could not have 
reduced the amount of compensation. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing 
for the State of Bihar, on the other hand, submitted that the award under 
Section 11(1) is a comprehensive award and, therefore, if number ofpi!!ces of 
lands are acquired by the same notification, the award would be a com11osite H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5.S.C.R. 
A one awarding compensation to different claimants. And ifthe total amount of 
compensation offered in such a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.