LexUJJAIN VIKAS PRADHIKARAN, (UJJAIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) versus TARACHAND AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UJJAIN VIKAS PRADHIKARAN,
(UJJAIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY)
v.
TARACHAND AND ANR. ETC.
JULY 12, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 26 and 54.
A
B
Land acquisition-Compensation-Enhancement of-Power of Cowt C
to grant compensation in excess of the amount claimed-{;ompensation
awarded to respondents-Enhancement of compensation sought-ln
Memorandum of appeal claimants confined their claim to Rs. 20,000 per
bigha--High Court awarding compensation @ Ri. 26, 125 per bigha i.e. in
excess of claimed amount-Held High Cowt e1Ted in awarding compensation
in excess of the amount claimed by landowners-Held claimants are entitled D
to the compensation @ Rs. 20, 000 per biglza with solatium and interest.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9513 of
1996 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.92 of the Madhya Pradesh E
High Court in C.F.A. No. 17 of 1988.
AK. Chitale, Niraj Sharma, Mohan Pandey, S.K. Gambhir, Vivek
Gambhir, Prashant Kr. and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The objection as regards abatement is over-ruled. Delay in filing the
application for snbstitution is condoned. Abatement is set aside.
Substitution allowed.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
F
G
(for short, the 'Act') was published on February 16, 1979. Possession of the H
531
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A land was taken on May 19, 1979. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded
compensation by his award under Section 11 on April 21, 1980 @ Rs.
27,500 per hectare. On reference, the District Judge by his award dated
November 10, 1987 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000 per hactare
together with solatium and inter.est @ 15% and 6% respectively. On
B appeal, the High Court er~rnnced the compensation by judgment and
decree dated August 26, 1992 in Appeal No. 17/88 and batch to Rs.
1,25,000 per hectare which worked out @ Rs. 26,125 per bigha. The High
Court also enhanced the solatium an interest respectively at 30% and 9%
from the date of taking possession for one year and 15% thereafter.
C
The first contention raise_d by Shri A.D. Chi talc, learned senior
counsel for the appellant is that the respondents having confined their
claim to enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 20,000 per bigha in the
memorandum in grounds filed in High Court, the High Court was clearly
in error in awarding compensation @ Rs. 26,125 per bigha, i.e., at Rs.
D 1,25,000 per hectare. We find force in the contention. Though Mr. S.K.
Gambhir, learned counsel for the claimants, contended that there is no
prohibition to the respondents to claim higher compensation after the
Amendment Act 68 of 1984 had come into force, the High Court was
justified in enhancing the compensation. We find no force in the conten-
tion.
E
It is true that under Section 22(2) of the Act prior to the Amend-
ment, the Court was prohibited to enhance the compensation in excess of
the amount claimed pursuant to notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of
the Act. Since sub-section (2) of Section 22 was deleted by Amendment
F
Act 68 of 1984, the limitation on the exercise of the power of the Court
was taken away. Nonetheless, it would always be open to a party to claim
a particular amount and having claimed at the rate, the question arises :
whether the Court could grant compensation higher than that claimed by
the party ? It would be obvious that when a party claims compensation at
a particular rate, he assesses the market value of the land at that particular
G rate and seeks compensation on that basis. Having assessed the compen-
sation at that particular rate, the question emerges : whether the Court
could grant higher compensation than was assessed by the party ? We find
the answer in the negative. This principle squarely applies to the facts in
these cases. The party hm,ing limited the compensation to Rs. 20,000 per
H bigha in the memorandum of appeal filed in the High Court, it would be
UJJAINVIKASPRADHIKARAN v. TARACHAND
533
obvious that the respondents claimed that they were entitled to the maxi-. A
mum of the compensation @ Rs. 20,000 per bigha. Thereby the Court was
precluded to award compensation beyond the amount claimed by the party
and award in excess thereof would be obviously illegal. The power of the
CouExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.