- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gurdial Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab .
Factual and Procedural Background
A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 15-2-1979 for acquisition of 4.5 acres of land to establish a Milk Chilling-cum-Demonstration Centre at Village Sardulgarh in Bhatinda District, Punjab. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award dated 23-3-1979 granting compensation at Rs 13,816 per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, by decree dated 30-4-1981 enhanced compensation to Rs 2,50,000 per acre. The State appealed under Section 54; the High Court (RFA No. 1065 of 1981 and batch) by order dated 15-9-1982 reduced the compensation to Rs 30,000 per acre. Dissatisfied with the High Court's judgment, the claimants/appellants filed appeals by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in view of Section 25(2) of the unamended Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Court had jurisdiction to award compensation exceeding the Collector's award when the applicants had omitted to make a claim under Section 9.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Sale deeds (Ex. A-1 to A-5) and mutation proceedings (Ex. A-7 to A-16) allegedly demonstrated a market value ranging from Rs 3,12,000 to Rs 1,08,000.
- The High Court was not justified in relying on a solitary mutation proceeding to determine compensation at Rs 30,000 per acre.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court rejected the appellants' challenge to the High Court's determination of market value by focusing on the statutory limits applicable under the unamended Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It noted that, by operation of Section 9, a claimant/owner is required to make a claim with particulars. Under Section 25 as it originally stood, two distinct constraints applied: where a claim is made, Section 25(1) restricted the court's award so that it could not exceed the amount claimed and could not be less than the Collector's award under Section 11; however, where no claim is made, Section 25(2) applied.
The Court set out Section 25(2) and held that when an applicant has omitted (without sufficient reason) to make such a claim, the court "shall in no case" award more than what was awarded by the Collector. Applying this rule, the Court found that the appellants had admittedly made no claim, and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to award compensation exceeding the Collector's award.
Although the Court observed that the High Court had not noted this statutory provision, it also stated that the High Court's appeal had been allowed to become final regarding the market value it fixed, and therefore "nothing can be done with the market value as fixed by the High Court." Nonetheless, the present appeals were dismissed because of the statutory prohibition under Section 25(2).
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The appeals were dismissed due to the statutory bar contained in Section 25(2) of the unamended Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since the appellants had admittedly omitted to make a claim.
The direct implication is that the appellants obtained no relief in these special leave appeals. The Court made no order as to costs. The opinion does not indicate that any broader legal precedent or additional directions were laid down beyond applying the statutory prohibition to the case.
Order
1. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 15-2-1979 acquiring 4.5 acres of land for establishing a Milk Chilling-cum-Demonstration Centre at Village Sardulgarh in Bhatinda District of Punjab State. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated 23-3-1979 awarded a sum of Rs 13,816 per acre as compensation. On reference, the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, by decree dated 30-4-1981 enhanced the compensation to Rs 2,50,000 per acre. On appeal under Section 54 by the State, the High Court in RFA No. 1065 of 1981 and batch, by its order dated 15-9-1982 reduced the compensation to Rs 30,000 per acre. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the appellants filed these appeals by special leave.
2. Shri Prem Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has strenuously contended that the sale deed (Ex. A-1 to A-5) and Mutation Proceedings (Ex. A-7 to A-16) would show that the market value ranged between Rs 3,12,000 to Rs 1,08,000. He submitted that the High Court was not justified in relying upon the solitary mutation proceedings noted in the judgment to determine the compensation at Rs 30,000 per acre. We find no force in this contention. It is seen that under the unamended Act, by operation of Section 9, the claimant or the owner is enjoined to make claim giving particulars of the claim. Section 25 of the Act, as originally stood, provided that in a case where a claim is made the amount awarded by the court shall not exceed the amount claimed or less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. This is by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 25. But in case where the claim was not made, sub-section (2) operated and held the field. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 read thus:
“25. (2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.”
Thus, it can be seen that in a case where the applicant had omitted to make the claim, then the court had no jurisdiction to award the compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. In these cases, no claim had been admittedly made by the appellants.
3. This provision was not noted by the High Court. The High Court, by referring to the mutation proceedings in which the market value was shown to be ranging between Rs 9400 to Rs 14,000 per acre, had enhanced the compensation to Rs 30,000 per acre. That appeal was allowed to become final; and so nothing can be done with the market value as fixed by the High Court. But these appeals are dismissed in view of the statutory prohibition contained in sub-section (2) Section 25 of the Act. We make no order as to costs.
Alert