- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 27 March 1997
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik
- Result
- Appeals allowed.
Headnote
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 18 and 23.
Land acquisition-Compensation award by Collector--Enhancement C'f compensation by Reference Cowt-Appeal dismissed by High Co wt on the ground of limitation-Appeal before Supreme Court-field two sale deeds had been filed in support of the claim higher compensation but neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined to substantiate those documents which is not the evidence legally admissible nor to be considered-17ie approach adopted by the High Cowt as well as the reference Cowt is not con-ect i11 law-171e award a11d decree of the reference Court and that of the Divisio11 Bench of the High Cowt is set aside-Matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal i11 accordance with law.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on October 17, 1994 in F.A. No. 271/1994 and batch.
The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") was published on June 3, 1979 acquiring a total extent of 24.9 acres of land for public purpose, namely, for establishment of road transport depot. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compen-sation at the rate of Rs. 11.25 per sq. yard. On reference under Section 18 of Act, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25 per sq. yard. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. Thus, these appeals.
On our direction the learned counsel for the parties have placed on record the adduced evidence. It is now admitted position that two sale deeds has been filed in support of the claim of higher compensation but neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined to substantiate those documents which is not the evidence legally admissible nor to be con-sidered. The reference Court also did not properly consider the claims in the legal perspective. Thus, we find that the approach adopted by the High Court as well as the reference Court is not correct in law. However, we are not expressing any opinion on merits. We set aside the award and decree of the reference Court and that of the Division Bench of the High Court. The matter is remitted to the reference Court with a direction to give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh, consider the Sf1111e in the light of the law laid down by this Court and then decide the,compen-sation accordingly within six months from the receipt of this, nrder. / The appeals are, accordingly, allowed but, in the circumstances without costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4980-86 of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.94 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A. No. 271, 270, 273, 274, 268, 272 and 269 of 1994.
Appearances
Pramod Swarup for the Appellant.
S.K. Verma, Chandra Sekhar, J.M. Khan and M.A. Khan for the Respondents.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.