- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
N. Boman Behram (Dead) By L.Rs And Another v. State Of Mysore And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant owned several acres of agricultural and horticultural land in Bangalore. In 1967 the State initiated land-acquisition proceedings: possession was taken in April, a Section 4 notification issued in May, and a Section 6 declaration published on 1 July 1967. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs 18,83,650.
The Government paid Rs 6,50,000 in September 1967 as an instalment and, by letter dated 30 August 1968, approved an award totalling Rs 6,57,870.15 for 86 acres 2 gunthas. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Mysore, seeking (i) to strike down the proviso to Section 11 and Section 15-A of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (“1961 Act”); (ii) a writ of prohibition preventing the Deputy Commissioner from acting on the Government’s approval letter; and (iii) a writ of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Officer to adhere to a draft award of Rs 13,00,000.
The High Court upheld the validity of the challenged provisions. The present appeal lies to the Supreme Court by certificate.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the proviso to Section 11 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1961, requiring prior Government approval of an award, violates Article 31(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether Section 15-A, empowering the State Government to call for and revise records before an award is made, is constitutionally valid.
- Whether the absence of express guidelines for Government approval renders the proviso to Section 11 unconstitutional.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The proviso to Section 11, introduced by Mysore Act 17 of 1961, infringes Article 31(2) because it permits the Government to alter the compensation fixed by the Deputy Commissioner without judicial safeguards.
- Section 15-A likewise offends the Constitution by allowing the Government to annul or modify proceedings arbitrarily.
- The provisions lack guiding principles, granting unguided discretion to the Executive in fixing compensation.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court characterised an award under Section 11 as merely an offer of compensation made on behalf of the State; the Deputy Commissioner acts administratively as the Government’s agent, not in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. Consequently, requiring prior Government approval does not “overreach” an independent decision-maker but confirms the Government’s ultimate authority over its own offer.
Rejecting the Article 31(2) challenge, the Court noted that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the parent statute, stands protected by Article 31(5). The Mysore amendments operate within that protected framework and do not alter the constitutional requirement that acquisition be for public purpose and by authority of law.
On the alleged absence of guidelines, the Court held that both the Deputy Commissioner and the Government must act within the statutory scheme. Sections 23 and 24 of the 1961 Act prescribe the factors for determining compensation, and any aggrieved person may seek a reference to the civil court under Section 18. The statutory right to judicial adjudication of compensation dispels the fear of arbitrary executive action.
Finally, the Court emphasised that the award is not final for the landholder; it can be challenged before the court, and when the civil court determines compensation its award is deemed a decree under Section 26.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed and the High Court’s judgment upholding the validity of the proviso to Section 11 and Section 15-A of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1961, is affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Implications: The decision confirms the constitutionality of executive approval and supervisory powers in land-acquisition awards within Mysore State. It leaves intact the statutory mechanism for judicial review of compensation and sets no new precedent beyond reiterating the administrative nature of the Collector’s award and the validity of governmental oversight.
A.N Ray, C.J— This is an appeal by certificate against the judgment dated June 6, 1969 of the High Court at Mysore.
2. The appellant was the owner of several acres of land at Bangalore. The appellant developed an agricultural and horticultural estate on that land. In the year 1967 there was a proposal to acquire the aforesaid property of the appellant. The land acquisition proceedings commenced. Possession of the property was taken in the month of April, 1967. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made in the month of May, 1967. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on July 1, 1967. In the month of August, 1967 the appellant preferred claims. The claim for compensation preferred by the appellant was for Rs 18,83,650.
3. In the month of September, 1967 the Government paid a sum of Rs 6,50,000 as an instalment. On August 30, 1968 the Government wrote to the Divisional Commissioner that the Government approved the award for the total of Rs 6,57,870.15 in respect of lands measuring 86 acres 2 gunthas.
4. The appellant made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia for an order that the proviso to Section 11 and Section 15-A of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act 17 of 1961 hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act be struck down and for further order that a writ of prohibition be issued to the Deputy Commissioner not to follow the instructions given by the Government in their approval letter dated August 30, 1968. The appellant also asked for a writ of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Officer to maintain their own valuation expressed in the draft award dated July 24, 1968 for the sum of Rs 13,00,000.
5. The High Court held that the proviso to Section 11 of the 1961 Act is valid. The reason given by the High Court is that the Deputy Commissioner is an agent of the State Government and the compensation fixed in the award is an offer made on behalf of the Government. The reason for the proviso to Section 11 of the 1961 Act is to eliminate rare cases of Land Acquisition Officers being influenced by extraneous considerations in determining the amount of compensation in excess of the real market value.
6. Counsel for the appellant contended that the proviso to Section 11 of the 1961 Act is unconstitutional. Section 11 of the 1961 Act deals with enquiry and award by Collector. Section 11 of the 1961 Act states that the Deputy Commissioner shall enquire into objections which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9, to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation. Section 11 of the 1961 Act further provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall make an award under his hand of (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.
7. Section 15-A of the 1961 Act states that the State Government may at any time before an award is made by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11 call for and examine the record of any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of any enquiry or proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed and as to the regularity of such proceedings. If, in any case, it shall appear to the State Government that any order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, it may pass such order thereon as it deems fit.
8. The proviso to Section 11 of the 1961 Act is that no such award shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner, without the previous approval of the State Government or such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf who in the case of an award made by an officer below the rank of the Deputy Commissioner of the District, may be the Deputy Commissioner of the District. Section 15-A of the 1961 Act is in aid of the proviso to Section 11 of the 1961 Act.
9. Counsel for the appellant contended that the proviso to Section 11 of the 1961 Act offended Article 31(2) of the Constitution. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is protected under Article 31(5) of the Constitution. The proviso came into existence by the Mysore Act No. 17 of 1961 and therefore counsel for the appellant challenges the same as an infraction of Article 31(2) of the Constitution. The contention is utterly unsound. The Land Acquisition Act is a piece of legislation which provides for acquisition of property for public purpose by authority of law for an amount which may be determined in accordance with the principles specified in the Land Acquisition Act.
10. The proviso states that no award shall be made without the previous approval of the State Government. An award made under Section 11 of the 1961 Act is an offer of compensation. The Deputy Commissioner makes an offer. The Deputy Commissioner is an agent of the Government. The Government is the ultimate authority to approve the award. Therefore, the proviso enjoins that no award shall be made without the previous approval of the State Government. It is wrong to suggest that any opinion of the Deputy Commissioner is being overreached by the State Government. The Deputy Commissioner is not acting in judicial or quasi-judicial capacity in making the award under Section 11 of the 1961 Act. The Deputy Commissioner acts in an administrative capacity as an agent of the State Government. The area of authority of the Deputy Commissioner is subject to approval by the State Government. The finality of the award under Section 11 of the 1961 Act rests with the State Government.
11. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there were no guidelines for the approval by the State Government under the proviso to Section 11 of the 1961 Act. This is an erroneous submission. The Government in approving the award has to take into consideration the provisions of the Act. Any grievance with regard to the quantum of compensation or any other grievance on account of compensation is capable of being remedied under the provisions of the Act.
12. The award made under Section 11 of the 1961 Act is required to be filed in the Collector's office. Under Section 15 of the 1961 Act the Collector in determining the amount of compensation shall be guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the 1961 Act. Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court under Section 18 of the 1961 Act. The Court in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded shall take into consideration matters provided in Section 23 of the 1961 Act. Under Section 26 of the 1961 Act the award shall be deemed to be a decree. These provisions indicate that an award under Section 11 of the 1961 Act is not final as far as the appellant is concerned. The matters to be considered in determining the compensation as embodied in Section 23 of the 1961 Act are to be kept in mind not only by the Collector under Section 15 of the 1961 Act but also by the Court under Section 23 of the 1961 Act.
13. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court is upheld. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs in this appeal.
Alert