- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Ashok Singhal And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Laxmi Ganj, Lashkar Gwalior, challenged a judgment of the High Court dated 2 February 1990 that had enhanced the compensation payable for lands acquired for the Samiti’s benefit. The acquisition was not for government purposes but for the statutory Samiti itself. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at ₹500 per bigha under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On reference sought by the landowners, the Additional District Judge (the Court of Reference) raised the amount to ₹1,000 per bigha. In a first appeal by the landowners, the High Court further increased compensation to ₹2,000 per bigha. The Samiti filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 15562 of 1990 against this enhancement and SLP No. 15563 of 1990 against the High Court’s subsequent refusal to review its judgment.
The Supreme Court condoned the delay, granted special leave in SLP No. 15562 of 1990, and declared SLP No. 15563 of 1990 infructuous because of the order made in the main appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the failure to serve notice on the beneficiary statutory body, as required by the Land Acquisition Act, renders invalid the High Court’s enhancement of compensation granted to the landowners.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments (Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti)
- The acquisition being for a statutory authority and not for the government, the Court of Reference and the High Court were statutorily bound to issue notice to the Samiti before considering any enhancement of compensation.
- No such notice had been served, and the Samiti had no opportunity to be heard; therefore, the High Court’s judgment was vitiated.
Respondent Landowners’ Position
- Counsel conceded that, given the absence of notice, the High Court judgment should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the Samiti.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court accepted that the Land Acquisition Act mandates notice to the entity for whose benefit the land is acquired when compensation is considered. Since it was undisputed that no notice had been served on the Samiti at either the reference stage or in the High Court appeal, the Court agreed that the Samiti had been denied an opportunity to be heard.
In light of the respondent landowners’ concession, the Court:
- Set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 2 February 1990.
- Remitted Appeal No. 24 of 1978 to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording the Samiti a hearing.
- Directed the Samiti to enter an appearance within two weeks without requiring further notice.
- Clarified that, because the record indicated the Samiti’s acceptance of the Additional District Judge’s award of ₹1,000 per bigha, the Samiti could not challenge that enhancement in the remanded proceedings.
Regarding funds already deposited pursuant to the High Court’s enhancement, the Court instructed the Reference Court to invest the amount in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank, with ultimate payment or apportionment to depend on the outcome of the remanded appeal and any pending apportionment disputes.
Holding and Implications
Order: The Supreme Court allowed SLP No. 15562 of 1990, set aside the High Court’s judgment of 2 February 1990, remitted the matter for fresh hearing within four months, and dismissed SLP No. 15563 of 1990 as infructuous. No costs were awarded.
Implications: The decision restores the proceedings to the High Court stage, ensuring the statutory beneficiary is heard before compensation is enhanced. The ruling impacts only the parties to this litigation and sets no new legal precedent beyond reinforcing the necessity of complying with notice provisions under the Land Acquisition Act.
Order
1. In the Special Leave Petition No. 15562 of 1990 the appellant, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Laxmi Ganj, Lashkar Gwalior, assails the correctness of the judgment dated February 2, 1990 of the High Court enhancing in the land owners' appeal the compensation in respect of lands acquired for purpose of the appellant.
2. Special Leave Petition No. 15563 of 1990 is directed against the order dated September 21, 1990 by which the High Court dismissed the application for a review of the said judgment dated February 2, 1990 preferred by the appellant.
3. In view of the order we make on the main appeal arising out of the judgment dated February 2, 1990, SLP No. 15563 of 1990 becomes infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.
4. We have heard learned counsel on both sides on SLP No. 15562 of 1990. Delay is condoned and special leave granted.
5. The acquisition was not for purposes of the government but for the benefit of the appellant which, as a statutory body, was a distinct entity. The Land Acquisition Officer under his award made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [‘Act’] determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs 500 per bigha and awarded compensation accordingly. Respondents not having accepted the award sought for reference to the civil court and in the proceedings of reference the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs 1000 per bigha. In the first appeal at the instance of the claimant-landowners the High Court made a further enhancement of the compensation to Rs 2000 per bigha.
6. The principal contention of the appellant is that the acquisition not having been for the government itself but for a statutory authority it was incumbent upon the Court of Reference as also the High Court in the appeal to issue notice to the appellant before considering the claim of the landowners for enhancement of the compensation. It is not disputed before us that the provisions of the ‘Act’ which require the service of notice to the body for whose benefit the acquisition is made are attracted to this case and that such notice was not served on the appellant and the appellant has had no opportunity of being heard.
7. Faced with this position learned counsel for the respondent-land owners fairly submitted that the judgment under appeal be set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for a fresh disposal after affording an opportunity to the appellant of being heard in the matter. In view of this submission, the judgment dated February 2, 1990 of the High Court in Appeal No. 24 of 1978 is set aside and the appeal remitted to the High Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording a hearing to the appellant. Appellant will enter appearance in the appeal within 2 weeks from today without the requirement of any further notice being served on it separately in this behalf. We also make it clear that as there is material to infer that appellant had accepted and was satisfied with the award of the Additional District Judge though no notice was served on the appellant in those proceedings it shall not be open to the appellant to assail the correctness of the enhancement made by the Court of Reference. That is the reason why we have not set aside the award of the Court of Reference. We request the High Court to dispose of the appeal within four months from today.
8. One other thing remains to be considered. It would appear that pursuant to the enhancement of the compensation made by the High Court from Rs 1000 per bigha to Rs 2000 per bigha the enhanced amount has come to be deposited in the Court of Reference. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court the Reference Court shall cause the amount to be invested in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank initially for a period of 6 months to be renewed thereafter if the appeal is not in the meantime disposed of. Ultimately, the payment or apportionment, as the case may be, of the amount shall abide the decision in the appeal as well as in the dispute pertaining to the question of apportionment inter se among the claimants which is stated to be pending separately. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Alert