Supreme Court of India Advocates, Lawyers, Delhi High Court Advocates, Lawyers Supreme Court of India Advocates, Lawyers, Delhi High Court Advocates, Lawyers

2001 SCCL.COM 88(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 2001)
Agra Development Authority Appellant Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. Respondents, decided on 2/7/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 50 — notification under section 4 — for acquiring land — compensation fixed — appellants aggrieved by fixing of compensation at rates fixed — held what is required by section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act is that the body for whom the property is being acquired is given an opportunity to appear and adduce evidence for the purposes of determining the amount of compensation — matter requires to be sent back to the Land Acquisition Officer for refixing compensation payable.

2001 SCCL.COM 143(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2001)
Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Appellant Vs. V. Narasaiah Respondent, decided on 2/27/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 51A — evidence — whether Section 51A obviated the insistence for examination of anyone connected with the transactions mentioned in the sale-deeds if the court has to consider such transactions as evidence in the case — held it is open to the court to act on documents regarding the transaction recorded in such documents — thus High Court cannot be faulted for relying on the transactions recorded in Ex.A2 and A4 though no one was examined for proving such transactions — appeal dismissed.

2001 SCCL.COM 211(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos.2370-2371 of 2001)
First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta and Ors. Appellants Vs. Daulat Singh Surana & Ors. Respondents, decided on 3/26/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan..
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 4 — West Bengal Premises Requisition & Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 — requisition of land and building — in writ petition order of requisition and notification issued under Section 4 quashed — held by mere issue of notification under Section 4 or 6 of the Act possession cannot be retained — direction to maintain status quo until disposal of the appeal.

2000 SCCL.COM 714(Case/Appeal No: C.A. No. 5015 of 1999)
State Govt. Houseless Harijan Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka & ors. Respondent, decided on 12/11/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Misra and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — rights of the beneficiary — of an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act to resist withdrawal of acquisition proceedings.

2000 SCCL.COM 647(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (C) No. 21 of 2000 in Civil Appeal No. 4656 of 1999)
Har Kiran Commar Appellant Vs. Delhi Admn. & others Respondents, decided on 11/21/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – review application by petitioner asking for similar relief of permitting additional construction as granted to her brother in similar case — whether the petitioner can contend that her case is similar to the case of her brother and hence can she seek a similar direction? — held no — no letter by the Joint Director permitting to make additional construction as was in the case of her brother — application dismissed.

2000 SCCL.COM 632(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2269-70 of 1997)
Union of India and anr. Appellants Vs. M/s. Mundra Salt & Chemical Industries & Ors. Respondents, decided on 11/14/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Misra and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 294 – Land Acquisition – who is the owner of the suit land, whether the appellant - Union of India or the State Government? — held the title over the land in question could not be that of the Union of India — appeals dismissed.

2000 SCCL.COM 570(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 13293 of 1996 with Review Petition (C) No. 33 of 1995 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12623 of 1993)
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Appellant and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Appellant Vs. Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. etc. Respondents and Ram hand & Ors. Respondents, decided on 9/29/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S.M. Quadri.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – appeal raises two question — whether the High Court could at all have awarded the compensation exceeding the claim made by the owners in the reference. The claim being Rs.10,000/- per Bigha while the High Court awarded @ Rs.11/- per sq. yd. — whether the High Court was right in awarding interest @ 9% and 15% to the respondent-land owners in a case where the award was rendered on 27.12.77 and the reference order was also passed on 28.2.1981.

2000 SCCL.COM 568(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 834 of 1981)
State of West Bengal & ors Appellants Vs. Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd. & Another Respondents, decided on 9/28/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – West Bengal Estates’ Acquisition Act, 1953 — section 6(1)(b) — dispute raised in the case relates to the question whether the writ petitioner is entitled to retain the lands comprised in plot Nos. 11 and 32 under Khatyan Nos. 21 and 390 respectively of Mouza Kalidah extending over an area of 2.3432 acres –whether the claim for retaining the land under the provision of section 6(1)(b) is acceptable — held yes — Division Bench was right in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding inter alia that the petitioner respondent no.2 herein was not entitled to retain the land in dispute because he was not in khas possession of the same.

2000 SCCL.COM 562(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5447 of 2000)
Netai Bag & others Appellants Vs. The State of West Bengal & others Respondents, decided on 9/27/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — State granted lease by negotiation to respondent no.5 for an integrated food procession unit with an abattoir in a semi-rural area, which was a low lying land — unable to set up project — no conduct of public auction or inviting of tenders for sale of property by the State Govt. — whether the action of the respondent-State in executing the lease deed with respondent No.5 is unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary or actuated by extraneous consideration — held no — appeal dismissed.

2002 SCCL.COM 465(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (C) No. 74 of 2001 In Civil Appeal No. 518 of 1998)
Union of India and others Petitioners Vs. Shakuntala Gupta (Dead) by Lrs. Respondents, decided on 8/27/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Ruma Pal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — a notification under section 4 issued — the purpose of acquisition stated is “Housing the Government Office” — notification challenged — the owner of one of the premises similarly specified in the impugned notifications, namely Banwari Lal and Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Banwari Lal) also filed a writ application in the High Court impugning the notification inter alia on the ground that there was no urgency which justified the Governor to dispense with the right of the owner to object under Section 5A of the Act. Banwari Lal’s writ application was allowed on 4th February, 1991 and the impugned notifications were quashed — appeal dismissed — application for recalling the order filed — Held the urgency sought to be expressed in the impugned notification cannot be held to be sufficient for the purposes of section 17(1) in this case when it has already been held to be bad in Banwari Lal’s case. The expression of urgency being one cannot be partly good and partly bad like curate’s egg. It must follow that the acquisition in respect of the respondent’s premises as mentioned in the notification which were sought to be acquired on the basis of such invalid expression of “urgency” cannot be sustained.

2000 SCCL.COM 485(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4656 of 1999 etc.)
Delhi Administration Appellant Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban & others etc. Respondents, decided on 8/18/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 6 — whether under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, while dealing with an inquiry report under section 5A, the Government is required to give elaborate reasons? — to what extent could a person who had not filed objection in section 5A inquiry challenge the section 6 declaration?

2001 SCCL.COM 263(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 9477 of 1994 (with C.A. Nos. 9520-22/94, 9478/94, 9526-9530/94, 9523-25/94, SLP(C) Nos. 5385-86/2001, 5383-84 of 2001 and 8748 of 1995))
Union of India and Anr. Appellants Vs. Hansoli Devi and Ors. etc. etc. Respondents, decided on 4/17/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — whether the starting point of limitation of 3 months as prescribed under Section 28-A for making application for re-determination of compensation ought to be the date of making of the award on the basis of which re-determination is sought? — held a pronouncement of a larger Bench is required to be made.

2001 SCCL.COM 520(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.6016 of 1999)
State of Haryana Appellant Vs. Ram Singh Respondent, decided on 7/25/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Ruma Pal.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — land acquired under — compensation to be awarded — determination of.

2001 SCCL.COM 562(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5120 of 2001)
The Project Officer, Singareni Colleries Company Ltd. Appellants Vs. B. Komaraiah & Ors. Respondents, decided on 8/7/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju.
Subject Index: Order — whether the order made by the civil court enhancing the compensation and the proceedings thereto are not binding on them inasmuch as they were not parties to the proceedings in the reference court — held the appropriate course was to hear the writ petition as well as the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer together and dispose of the matters. Ultimately, the burden will be upon the appellants to pay the compensation. Therefore, until their writ petition is decided, no effective order could have been made in respect of payment of compensation arising under the proceedings — appeal allowed.

2001 SCCL.COM 597(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 3190-3192 of 2000)
Shaji Kuriakose and Anr. Appellants Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. Respondents, decided on 8/14/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — land acquired — compensation for — valuation — method of.

2001 SCCL.COM 598(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5516 of 2001 With Civil Appeal Nos. 5517-5530 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 11722-11723/1999, SLP (C) No. 2199/2000, SLP (C) No. 18228/1999, SLP (C) No. 3351-3352/2000, SLP (C) 4857/2000 & SLP (C) No. 12089/2000, SLP (C) No. 16786/1999, SLP (C) No. 16822/19999, SLP (C) Nos. 17971-17973/1999 and SLP (C) No. 13954/2001)
Sube Singh & Ors. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents, decided on 8/17/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — acquisition of land — exclusion of certain lands — the rejection of the request of the appellants for exclusion of their land having structures on them was not based on a fair and reasonable consideration of the matter — such action of the Government is arbitrary and discriminatory — orders passed by State Government rejecting the representation of appellants quashed — appeal allowed.

2001 SCCL.COM 705(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6271 of 1998 (with C.A. Nos. 6272, 6273, 6274/98, 1032, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 2705/99, 2437 to 2445 of 2000))
Sunder Appellant Vs. Union of India Respondents, decided on 9/19/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23(2) — Is the State liable to pay interest on the amount envisaged under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984?

2001 SCCL.COM 707(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6532-34 of 2001 etc. )
L.K. Malik & Ors. etc. Appellants and N.N. Verma & Ors. Appellant(s) and D.N. Verma & Ors. Appellant(s) Vs. D.D.A. & Ors. Respondents, decided on 9/20/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 6 — notification under.

2001 SCCL.COM 739(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.7077 of 2001 (With Civil Appeal No.7078 of 2001))
S.H. Rangappa Appellant with Sh. Khathum Bi Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. Respondents, decided on 10/3/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venktarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 6(1) and (2) — whether the notification under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) should be published within the period prescribed by the proviso to Section 6(1) of the said Act — Khadim Hussain’s case followed.

2001 SCCL.COM 803(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1687 of 1998)
Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Anr. Appellants Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Respondents, decided on 10/16/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23(1A) — interpretation of — the starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be award thereunder, at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the market value, is the date of publication of the section 4 notification. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier — no room for any other construction — appeal dismissed.

2001 SCCL.COM 853(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (C) Nos. 306-308 of 2000 (In Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18180-18182 of 1999) (With Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5417 of 2000))
M/s. Green View Tea & Industries Petitioner Vs. Collector, Golaghat & Anr. Respondents, decided on 11/9/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Shah Mohammad Quadri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4(1) — land notified for acquisition — petitioner challenging the amount of compensation fixed at various stages — seeking review — the law in regard to review of an order of this Court is too well settled to justify an elaborate discussion on the point. Suffice it to observe that the finality of the order of the Apex Court of the country should not lightly be unsettled — no merit in review petitions — dismissed.

2001 SCCL.COM 855(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7889 of 2001)
Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents, decided on 11/19/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4(1), 6 and 11-A — whether declaration u/s.6 having not been published within a period of one year from the last date of publication of the Notification u/s.4, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated and should be set aside? — held no — the “declaration must be made” within one year from the date of “last publication of the Notification” under Section 4. Thereafter the publication under Section 6(2) may take place at a later date as it is merely a ministerial act — proceedings not vitiated — appeal dismissed.

2002 SCCL.COM 044(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 667 of 2002)
Khazan Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Appellants Vs. Union of India Respondent, decided on 1/24/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan.
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure — Section 151 — Order 9 Rule 9 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 18 — can the reference made by a Collector u/s. 18 be dismissed for default?

2002 SCCL.COM 084(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5354-89 of 1993)
Kashiben Bhikabai and Ors. Appellants Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Respondents, decided on 2/6/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — question of fair and equitable compensation for the acquired land.

2002 SCCL.COM 086(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1037-1040 of 2002)
Koppathi Venkati and Ors. Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Respondents, decided on 2/7/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4(1) and 28A.

2002 SCCL.COM 097(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 9521-22 of 1995 (With W.P.(C) No. 349 of 2001))
The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-DSWO, A.P. Appellant Vs. M/s. B.V. Reddy & Sons Respondents, decided on 2/14/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4(1) and 25 — can the provision of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act be construed to be procedural in nature or is substantive? — if it is held to be substantive in nature, then can the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act would apply to a case where the award of the Land Acquisition Collector had been made much prior to the amendment in question?

2002 SCCL.COM 107(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1327-1335 of 2002)
Karnataka Electricity Board Appellant Vs. The State of Karnataka & others Respondents, decided on 2/19/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr.Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — whether award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is in conformity with the agreement between the parties?

2002 SCCL.COM 161(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1913 of 2002)
First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. Appellants Vs. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli & Anr. Respondents, decided on 3/7/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 4 — West Bengal Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 — the question of urgency of an acquisition under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Government and ordinarily it is not open to the Court to make a scrutiny of the propriety of that satisfaction on an objective appraisal of facts — acquisition in question not vitiated on any ground — appeal allowed.

2002 SCCL.COM 169(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 14198 of 1996)
Sharda Devi Appellant Vs. State of Bihar Respondent, decided on 3/13/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4(1) and 54 — whether Section 54 of the Act excludes an appeal under the Letters Patent? — held no.

2002 SCCL.COM 171(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 1997)
Padmasundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. Appellants Vs. State of T.N. & Ors. Respondents, decided on 3/13/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 6 — whether after quashing of Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act fresh period of one year is available to the State Government to issue another Notification under Section 6 — held the fact that legislature specifically provided for periods covered by orders of stay or injunction clearly shows that no other period was intended to be excluded and that there is no scope for providing any other period of limitation. The maxim ‘actus curia neminem gravibit’ highlighted by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court has no application to the fact situation of this case.

2002 SCCL.COM 183(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5938-5939 of 2000 (With C.A. Nos. 5940-5941 of 2000))
Raj Kumar Johri and another Appellants Vs. State of M.P. and others Respondents, decided on 3/7/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — section 4(1) — notification under — acquisition of more than 600 hectares of land — notification quashed — appellant challenged acquisition — acquisition upheld — determination of acquisition upheld — determination of compensation.

2002 SCCL.COM 189(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 12515 of 1996 (With C.A. Nos. 13370-13371/1996. C.A. No. 2238-2242 of 2002 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21304-21308 of 1996) and CA Nos. 1552-1554 of 2000)
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Appellant Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib Respondent, decided on 3/19/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 18 — application seeking enhancement of compensation.

2002 SCCL.COM 207(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2338 of 2002)
Munithimmaiah Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka & others Respondents, decided on 3/22/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.
Subject Index: Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 — Section 19(1) – Land Acquisition Act — a scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for implementation under the B.D.A. Act, cannot be stultified or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act, particularly of the nature of Sections 6 and 11-A, which cannot also on its own force have any application to actions taken under the B.D.A. Act — no infirmity whatsoever in the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. case (supra) to exclude the applicability of Sections 6 and 11-A as amended and inserted by the Central Amendment Act of 1984 to proceedings under the B.D.A. Act — appeal dismissed.

2002 SCCL.COM 266(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2910-2913 of 2002)
Narpat Singh etc. etc. Appellants Vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. Respondents, decided on 4/24/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal.
Subject Index: A) Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 — Section 4 — Notification under — acquisition of land in the localities of Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura, Tehsil Jaipur, adjacent to Jaipur city for urban development, viz. for multi purpose project of constructing legislative assembly, MLA quarters and planned development of city, popularly known as ‘Lal Kothi Scheme’ — claimants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation — held to meet the ends of justice, and the appellants too ought to feel satisfied, if monetary compensation based on the principles for assessment thereof in Land Acquisition cases is awarded and in addition they are given each a plot of reasonable size to rehabilitate themselves so as to meet the demands of reasonability and consistency. B) Constitution of India — Article 136 — the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution on this Court is discretionary. It does not confer a right to appeal on a party to litigation; it only confers a discretionary power of widest amplitude on this Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice. On one hand, it is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly, with caution and care and to remedy extra-ordinary situations or situations occasioning gross failure of justice; on the other hand, it is an overriding power whereunder the Court may generously step in to impart justice and remedy injustice.

2002 SCCL.COM 501(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 9477 of 1994 (with C.A. No. 9520-22 of 1994 C.A. 9478 of 1994 C.A. 9526-30 of 1994 C.A. 9523-25 of 2001 SLP(C) 5385-86 of 2001 SLP(C) 5383-84 of 2001 C.A. 8748 of 1995 SLP(C) 22360-61 of 2001 and C.A. No. 3515 of 1997 with C.A. No. 3516 of 1997)
Union of India and another Appellants and State of Tripura and another Appellants Vs. Hansoli Devi and others Respondents and Roop Chand Das & others Respondents, decided on 9/12/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 28-A — interpretation of — whether dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to “not filing an application” within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? — whether a person whose application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is dismissed on the ground of delay or any other technical ground is entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act? — whether a person who has received the compensation without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and has not filed an application seeking reference under Section 18 is a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 28-A?”. B) Interpretation of statues — when language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the court must give effect to the words used in the statute and it would not be open to the courts to adopt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act.

2002 SCCL.COM 526(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4065 of 1999 (With C.A. Nos. 4066-4104, 4106-4118/99, 858, 2603, 4344/2000, 2410, 5263/2001, 6060, 6055, 6059, 6057, 6062, 6056, 6058, 6061 and 6054/2002))
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur Appellant Vs. Bheru Lal and others Respondents, decided on 9/20/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4(1) and 6(2) — for the purpose of acquiring the lands, publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the official gazette in mandatory — for counting the period of limitation of one year and the previous publication of notices in the newspapers were rightly ignored by the High Court — on the ground of delay and laches in filing the writ petitions, the Court ought to have dismissed the same.

2002 SCCL.COM 543(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1164-1200 of 1993 (with C.A. Nos. 9209, 9210, 9213, 9214, 9260-9261/95, SLP(C) Nos. 8256-8259/93, C.A. Nos. 839/95, 3789/92, S.L.P. (C) No. 12949/92, 3331/93, C.A. Nos. 9207, 9206/95, S.L.P. (C) No. 3210/99, C.A. No. 9211, 9212, 9208/95, 6590, 6591, 6592 of 2001))
Nagpur Improvement Trust and others Appellant Vs. Vasantrao and others Respondents, decided on 9/26/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 6,23(2) and 28 thereof stand incorporated in the three State Acts — whether the Land Acquisition Act has been merely referred to in the State Acts. If it is held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act stand legislatively incorporated in the State Acts, the subsequent amendments to the Land Acquisition Act will have no effect upon the acquisitions made under the State Acts — namely, The Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 — the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 and The Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 — the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as modified by the State Acts and the Schedule thereto stand incorporated in the State Acts and therefore, the subsequent amendment of Section 6 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (Act No. 13 of 1967) or by Act 68 of 1984, will have no effect on the acquisition made under the State Acts — the Land Acquisition Act stands incorporated in the State Acts, with the consequence that subsequent amendments to the Land Acquisition Act have no effect upon the acquisitions made under the State Acts — appellant’s claim for additional amount.

2002 SCCL.COM 564(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5699 of 1998 (with C.A. Nos. 5700-04, 5705, 5706, 5707, 5708, 5709, 6499, 6420-21/98, 1054, 1263, 201/99, 6589/2000, 3603-4, 3613/2002, 6495/2002 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2206, 22589/2001, 2608-2611 of 2002))
M/s. Kanaka Gruha Nirman Sahakara Sangha Appellant Vs. Smt. Narayanamma (Since deceased) by Lrs. and others Respondents,decided on 10/3/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4(1) and 6(1) — notification under – Land Acquisition proceedings — challenged.

2002 SCCL.COM 605(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7023 of 1993 (With C.A. Nos. 7025-30 and 7024 of 1993))
Northern Indian Glass Industries Appellant Vs. Jaswant Singh and Ors. Respondents, decided on 10/29/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: Delay and Laches–Land Acquisition Act–Section 4–notification under–compensation awarded to land owners in respect of Land Acquisition–High Court in writ petitions quashed the acquisition proceedings–the respondents 1-5 approached the High Court by filing writ petition almost after a period of 17 years after finalization of the acquisition proceedings. They accepted the compensation amount as per the award and sought for enhancement of the compensation amount without challenging the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6–held the High Court was not at all justified in ignoring the delay and laches and granting relief to them–also the High Court was also not right in ordering restoration of land to the respondents on the ground that the land acquired was not used for which it had been acquired–appeals allowed.

2002 SCCL.COM 625(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 7139 of 2001 (With C.A. Nos. 7140, 7143, 7142, 7141, 7171, 7145-67,7144, 7168, 8206/- 2001, SLP(C) Nos. 17711/2001, 2107-08, 2111-2112, 2113-2114/2002 and C.A. Nos. 5777, 5610/2002 and SLP(C) Nos. 17717, 13563, 21250/2001 and 2109-2110 of 2002))
Kasturi and others Appellants Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 11/12/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 6 and 18 — claimants not satisfied with award amount, sought reference u/s. 18 — single judge applied cut of 20% towards development charges and reduced the amount of compensation — appeal — contention that the cut of 20% on the amount of compensation was not at all justified having regard to the fact that the acquired land was in a fully developed area — held having regard to facts and circumstances of the case that the High Court has applied cut of 20% as against the normal 1/3 deduction — High Court right and justified in doing so — appeals and SLPs dismissed.

2002 SCCL.COM 671(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3515 of 1997 (With C.A. No. 3516 of 1997))
The State of Tripura and another Appellants Vs. Roopchand Das and others Respondents and Sudhir Debnath and others Respondents,decided on 12/3/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — limitation — respondents sought re-determination of compensation for their land — limitation period for such application — the right to make the application under Section 28-A of the Act arises from the award of the Court on the basis of which the person making the application is seeking re-determination of the compensation. There is nothing in Sub-section (1) of Section 28-A to indicate that this right is confined in respect of the earliest award that is made by the court after the coming into force of Section 28-A — principles laid down by a bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Pradeep Kumari and others (supra) followed — appeals dismissed.

2002 SCCL.COM 679(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8003 of 2002 (With C.A. Nos. 1539, 1540 1541 of 2001 and C.A. Nos. 8004-8012/2002))
Bhavnagar University Appellant Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and others Respondents, decided on 12/3/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 — Sections 20 and 21 — interpretation of — whether by reason of inaction on the part of the State and its authorities under the Town Planning Act to acquire the lands for a period of more than 10 years, in terms of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 despite service of notice; the same stood de-reserved/de-designated in view of issuance of draft revised plan under Section 21 thereof, the term of 10 years stood extended?

2002 SCCL.COM 684(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8394 of 1995)
The Jalandhar Improvement Trust Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab and others Respondents, decided on 11/27/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 18 — reference sought under Section 18 for determining enhanced compensation by 4th Respondent –order made by the Land Acquisition Collector, giving the benefit of enhanced compensation to the 4th respondent — held the 4th respondent indisputably is a co-owner alongwith her children who were added as petitioners 2 to 5 to the award dated 5.2.1986, in which case, even on the first principles of law one co-owner is entitled to have the benefit of the enhanced compensation given in respect of the other co-owners in a reference made at his instance in respect of the land acquired, which belonged to all of them, jointly — appeal dismissed.

2002 SCCL.COM 768(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1027-1028 of 1992 With C.A. Nos. 1029-1030 of 1992 With C.A. Nos. 8465-8466 of 2002)
S. Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. Appellants Vs. Smt. Pramod Gupta (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. Respondents, decided on12/17/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4, 30 and 31(2) — land acquired by Govt. — Code of Civil Procedure — Order 22 — the Award/decrees, which were the subject-matter of challenge before the High Court, would not render them to be a joint and inseparable decree but in substance a mere combination of several decrees depending upon the number of claimants before the Court and, therefore, joint and several or separable vis-a-vis the individuals or their claims concerned. Consequently, even the abatement of the appeal in the High Court in respect of one or other of the appellants cannot by itself result in the abatement of the appeal in its entirety or render it liable to be dismissed as not duly or properly constituted or not possible to be proceeded with. The conclusions to the contrary arrived at by the High Court and liable to be and are hereby set aside — the judgment and decrees passed by the High Court in all these appeals are set aside and appeals are remitted to the High Court to be restored to their original files for being disposed of afresh on merits of the claims of both parties and in accordance with law.

2003 SCCL.COM 11(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 14198 of 1996)
Sharda Devi Appellant Vs. State of Bihar and others Respondents, decided on 1/8/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 30 — whether in the facts and circumstances of the case a reference u/s 30 of the Act was competent? In other words, the core question is - when the State proceeds to acquire land on an assumption that it belongs to a particular person, can the award be called into question by the State seeking a reference u/s 30 of the Act on the premise that the land did not belong to the person from whom it was purportedly acquired and was a land owned by the State having vested in it, consequent upon abolition of proprietory rights, much before acquisition?

2003 SCCL.COM 34(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5101 of 1996 With Civil Appeal No. 5102 of 1996)
Ghaziabad Development Authority Appellant Vs. Anoop Singh and Another Respondents, decided on 1/23/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 — Sections 23 and 28 — whether the respondents - land holders could claim and get compensation under the Land Acquisition Act over and above what they claimed in an application seeking reference to Civil Court and whether the respondents are entitled to the statutory benefits under Sections 23 and 28 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984? — held there is no bar under the Land Acquisition Act to file a petition for amendment of the claim application in regard to the quantum of compensation claimed as there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act which is inconsistent with the power to allow amendment — further the error committed by the Reference Court in granting solatium and interest at the rates specified in the old Section 23 and 28 was rightly set right by the High Court by awarding solatium and interest at the enhanced rates — whether the benefit under Section 23(1-A) could be extended to the claimants — held the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) as the case does not fall within the ambit of either Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act.

2003 SCCL.COM 54(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 635 of 2003 (Civil Appeal Nos. 636 to 638 of 2003))
Dayal Singh and others Appellants Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 1/29/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.R. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 28A — applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in a proceeding under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.

2003 SCCL.COM 90(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 16822 of 1996)
U.O.I. Appellant Vs. Charan Singh and others Respondents, decided on 1/21/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 28(A) — fixation of the land value by this court — re-determination of — the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to get the amount under section 28(A) only to the extent fixed by this Court.

2003 SCCL.COM 163(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2580 of 1997 (With C.A. No. 2581 of 1997))
Bhakra Beas Mgt. Board and others Appellants Vs. State of H.P. and others Respondents, decided on 1/30/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 28-A — application under — disputes between the landlords and the tenants — landlord given only 2/3rd of enhanced compensation — second application u/s 28-A claiming for remaining 1/3rd amount — held it is true that second application under section 28-A is not maintainable and no claimant can go on filing applications under section 28-A as soon as there is any variation in the determination of the compensation in respect of any other landowner whose land is acquired under the same Notification. But in the instant case, where the 4th respondent filed his first application, the Collector, who might have been dealing with series of other applications, should have noticed the fact that the petitioner therein being landlord in respect of the land, was entitled to the full amount and not the 2/3rd of the compensation — no error or illegality in awarding the additional compensation to the 4th respondent by rectifying the mistake earlier committed — appeals dismissed.

2003 SCCL.COM 226(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 11733-11734 of 1995 (With C.A. No. 11735 of 1995))
Ravinder Narain and another Appellants Vs. Union of India Respondent, decided on 2/28/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — controversy relating to valuation of lands acquired — where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria — however, this cannot be absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate.

2003 SCCL.COM 245(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2729 of 1999 etc. (with Civil Appeal Nos. 2730-2731 of 1999))
City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Appellant Vs. Damodar Khemchand Talreja & Anr. etc. Respondents with Abdul Gafur Naruddin Kazl & Ors. Respondents, decided on 3/4/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddy.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 — Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 — award of compensation — whether the provisions of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as introduced by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act No. 68 of 84 are applicable for determining the compensation payable in respect of land acquired under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966?

2003 SCCL.COM 252(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4394 of 1997)
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents, decided on 3/4/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1996 — Section 126(3) — interpretation of — the land-holders whose lands are acquired under Chapter VII of MRTP Act cannot be subjected to a disability or disadvantage in the matter of obtaining monetary recompense for the deprivation of land depending upon the nature of public purpose or the authority for whose benefit the land is acquired.

2003 SCCL.COM 261(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2045 of 2003)
Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia and another Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another Respondents, decided on 3/5/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Proviso to Section 11(1) — question of the authority of the Commissioner exercising a power under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act to reconsider the material on record and to disagree with the finding of the Collector and further to issue directions to the Collector to fix the market value/compensation in a manner he thinks appropriate — held the power vested with the Commissioner under proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act is limited power which is administrative in nature, hence, he cannot sit in appeal against the proposed award made by the Collector under Section 11(1) of the Act — in 1998(2) SCC 573 and 1998 (2) SCC 572 Court has not considered the nature of power exercised by the Commissioner under proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act nor has the Court considered the effect of introducing Section 15A of the Act — this matter should be referred to a larger Bench.

2003 SCCL.COM 264(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998 (With C.A. No. 67 of 1998))
Tej Kaur and Ors. etc. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. Respondents, decided on 3/7/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – the appellants did not have a genuine grievance against Section 5A inquiry held by the Collector — Supreme Court not inclined to interfere with the judgment on the grounds now advanced by the appellants.

2003 SCCL.COM 277(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6969 of 1999)
State of Andhra Pradesh And another Appellants Vs. Goverdhanlal Pitti Respondent, decided on 3/11/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Malice – Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4(1) and 6 — acquisition of building and premises of school by State — case of the respondent that only in order to frustrate the decree of eviction and to avoid the delivery of possession of the land and school building to the owner in compliance with the directions made by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 6487 of 1988 and in breach of undertaking given by the State to vacate, the State hurriedly issued on 26.4.1989 notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the building and premises of the school — High Court came to the conclusion that the acquisition of the school building with its appurtenant land by the State was an action liable to be quashed being ‘malicious in law’ — appeal — held where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State — resort to acquisition at a stage when there was no other alternative but to do so to serve a genuine public which was being fulfilled from 1954 signify more a reasonable and just exercise of statutory power. Such exercise of power cannot be condemned as one made in colourable or mala fide exercise of it — appeal allowed.

2003 SCCL.COM 291(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 999 of 2001 (with C.A. Nos. 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004/2001, C.P.(C) No., 303/2000 in CA. No. 999/2001, C.P.(C) No. 304/2000 in C.A. No. 1000/2001, C.P.(C) No. 305/2000 in C.A. No. 1001/2001, C.P.(C) No. 306/2000 in C.A. No. 1002/2001, C.P.(C) No. 307/2000 in C.A. No. 1003/2001, C.P.(C) No. 274/99 in SLP(C) No. 6036/99 and C.P.(C) No. 281/99 in SLP(C) No. 6036/99))
Ved Prakash and others Appellants Vs. Ministry of Industry, Lucknow and another Respondents, decided on 3/12/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — acquisition proceedings challenged by appellants on the ground that their lands having abadi could not be acquired as per the existing policy for not acquiring such lands — held an individual assuming could claim some area as abadi that could be a small area appurtenant to his residential house or a farm house or any cattle shed etc. but the appellants claim for large area covering few acres of land as abadi, is untenable — not feasible to release the lands of the appellants from acquisition — appeals dismissed.

2003 SCCL.COM 318(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6238 of 1998)
The General Manager, Department of Telecommunications Thiruvananthapuram Appellant Vs. Jacob S/o Kochuvarkey Kalliath (dead) by Lrs. and others Respondents, decided on 4/1/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Kerala Land Acquisition Act — Section 11-A — construction of — challenge to acquisition proceedings having lapsed u/s.11-A — Division Bench of High Court held that the acquisition proceedings, initiated to acquire the land in question by publishing a Notification dated 31.7.1984 have lapsed due to delay in passing the award and set aside the proceedings leaving liberty with the authorities to take fresh acquisition proceedings, if it is so desired, in accordance with law — appeal — held the Division Bench eems to have committed a patent error — the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court cannot be sustained.

2003 SCCL.COM 343(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 3068-3069 of 2003 (with C.A. Nos. 3073-3074, 3075, 3077, 3078, 3079, 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 3085, 3086, 3087, 3089, 3091, 3092, 3095, 3097, 3098, 3099, 3100, 3102, 3103, 3104, 3105, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 3110, 3111, 3112, 3113, 3114, 3115, 3116, 3117, 3118, 3119, 3120, 3121, 3122, 3123, 3124, 3125, 3126, 3127, 3128, 3129, 3130, 3131, 3132, 3133, 3134, 3135, 3136, 3137, 3138, 3139, 3141, 3142, 3143-3148 of 2003))
Charanjit Kaur (Dead) through Proposed Lrs. Appellant Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 4/4/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compartmental consideration of the competing and conflicting claims relating to one and the same matter, whether can be legitimately undertaken in a disjucted and decompartmentised manner? — held no — where several appeals are before an appellate forum filed in the form of counter claims both of the land owners as well as the acquiring authorities for determination of the proper market value and assessment of fair compensation, the process involved in such adjudication, necessarily has to be a related one, taking together, the combination of all relevant factors and the adjudication cannot be undertaken in a disjuncted manner by dealing with such claims, though pertaining to the same subject matter, separately and distinctly — appeals allowed.

2003 SCCL.COM 356(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3064 of 2000)
Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Appellant Vs. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and another Respondents, decided on 4/16/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 18 and 30 — reference — land acquired — dispute with respect to compensation — question whether the SLAO had made a reference under Section 18 of the Act? — it is well established that the reference court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer and that civil court has got the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objections referred to it. The reference court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it — held in the absence of a proper Reference, the Additional District judge had no jurisdiction to decide the question of enhancement of compensation. When such an objection was not referred to the court, there was complete lack of jurisdiction — appeal dismissed.

2003 SCCL.COM 382(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 967-970 of 1990)
Union of India Appellant Vs. Chajju Ram (Dead) by Lrs. and others Respondents, decided on 4/16/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: Defence of India Act, 1971 — constitutional validity of — on the premise that absence of any provision for payment of solatium and interest therein for acquisition of land is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India — whether the owners of the lands sought to be acquired under the Act vis-a-vis Land Acquisition Act are similarly situated?

2003 SCCL.COM 401(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 643 of 2002)
Narayan Prasad Agrawal Appellant Vs. State of M.P. and others Respondents, decided on 4/29/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 4 — Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity and legality of the Notification of Section 4(1) or Declaration under Section 6 and the remedy open to the aggrieved party is to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution — District Judge was justified in taking the view that the long delay of about 11 years cannot be condoned in a matter relating to Land Acquisition as, by that time, the authorities must have proceeded with the acquisition proceedings and would have taken further steps in the matter — invocation of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court was made belatedly.

2003 SCCL.COM 430(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1322 of 1997)
Virender Singh and others Appellants Vs. Union of India Respondent, decided on 4/22/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 4(1) — the correctness of the market value assessed by the Reference Court and affirmed by the High Court of Delhi is in question — giving due allowance to the rising prices between 1959 and 1962 and keeping in view the location of the land which according to the High Court, is quite far from the main road intervened by the lands of others, we are of the view that the market value of the land acquired could be reasonably fixed at Rs. 20,000 per Bigha — further, the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium.

2003 SCCL.COM 435(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3422 of 2003 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21927/2002) (with C.A. No. 3423 of 2003) (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22018/2002))
Director of Industries & Mines, Goa Petitioner with State of Goa and others Appellants Vs. M/s. A.H. Jaffar & Sons and others Respondents, decided on 4/14/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: Mining lease — grant of – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 — notification proposing to acquire a huge chunk of land including the land forming subject matter of mining lease — held in view of the subsequent notification under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the State Government cannot be compelled to actually execute the lease deed now. We hold that the lease deed shall be deemed to have been executed in terms of the order of the High Court and the rights and obligations of the parties including that of compensation shall be worked out accordingly.

2003 SCCL.COM 501(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6092 of 1999 (with C.A. Nos. 6093 of 1999 and 6096, 6097, 6775, 6776, 6091 of 2001 and 4866 of 1999) (with CA Nos. 5522 to 5524, 5526 to 5549 of 1999 and 7224, 7225, 7263 to 7277 of 2001))
Savitri Cairae Appellant and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Appellant Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another Respondents and Jagdish Chandra and others Respondents, decided on 5/1/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: different rates of compensation in respect of the lands so acquired — for the purpose of providing housing facilities to the people, lands undoubtedly can be acquired both under the Land Acquisition Act as also under the Adhiniyam — once the High Court had held that the Amending Act of 1984 was applicable for the grant of compensation, it appears that some clerical error crept into the judgment of the High Court in not awarding additional compensation — the claimants are also entitled to the additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Further, the claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the first year and 15 per cent for the subsequent years.

2003 SCCL.COM 547(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 9520-9522 of 1994)
State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Appellants Vs. Marri Venkaiah and others Respondents, decided on 7/28/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Hon’ble Dr. Justice A. R. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — whether the period of limitation for filing application under Section 28-A of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 begins to run from the date of passing of the Award by the Court in a reference filed by a landowner, other than the applicant, whose land was acquired by common notification under Section 4 of the Act or from the date of the knowledge by the application of passing of the award by the Civil Court?

2003 SCCL.COM 563(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7133 of 1999 (with C.A. Nos. 7134, 7135, 7136 & 7138 of 1999))
Pratibha Nema and others Appellants Vs. State of M.P. and others Respondents, decided on 7/30/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – for industries — for setting up diamond cutting and polishing units — notification issued — the guidelines enunciated in the policy statement have to be viewed realistically. The topography of the area and the development around the area are some of the factors that could be legitimately taken into account. On the basis of the materials placed before the Court it is not possible to hold that the proposed diamond park project will be detrimental to public health, safety or security so as to override the public interest that is served by setting up export-oriented industries — it is primarily within the domain of State Government to decide how much extent of land has to be acquired keeping in view the present and future needs — Court inclined to find fault with the notification on this ground, we would only like to observe that it is desirable that the State Government makes a fresh assessment in the light of the latest situation and exclude any part of the land which may be found to be in excess.

2003 SCCL.COM 619(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3301 of 2002 (with C.A. Nos. 3303, 3304, 3305, 3306, 3307, 3302, 3308, 3309, 3310, 3311, 3312, 3313, 3314, 3315, 3316, 3317, 3318, 3319, 3320, 3321, 3322 of 2002))
State of Maharashtra and others Appellants Vs. Maimuma Banu and others Respondents, decided on 8/5/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — whether the High Court of Bombay was justified in directing payment of interest on rental compensation awarded to persons whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

2003 SCCL.COM 664(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6365-6382 of 1999 (With C.A. Nos. 6383-6398 of 1999))
Tajumal Bhojwani and Ors. Appellants Vs. State of U.P. Respondent, decided on 8/26/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 — whether solaltium and interest should have been awarded as per the Land Acquisition(Amendment) Act, 1984 as laid down by this Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Jainul Islam and Anr. (1998 (2) S.C.C. 467); whether appropriate compensation should have been awarded for structures and tube wells situated on the land concerned and whether the offer regarding payment of compensation for trees given by the Land Acquisition Officer could be withdrawn in Section 18 proceedings — held in view of the decision in Savitri Cairae’s case (supra), it must be held that each of the appellants are entitled to solatium @ 30%, interest and additional compensation — claimants are entitled to separate compensation for land, Tube Well and structure — deduction for development charges ought to be adequately provided for, but it varies from place to place, area to area and amount of developments which are required to be carried out and thus there cannot be any fixed amount of deduction towards development charges — it would be appropriate if the development charges @ 25% is deducted from the compensation awarded to the claimants. 

2003 SCCL.COM 685(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7011 of 2003)
Bihar State Housing Board Appellant Vs. State of Bihar and others Respondents, decided on 9/5/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 11a — whether award made u/s. 11A is barred by limitation?

2003 SCCL.COM 691(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4170 of 1999)
Smt. Kanak and Anr. Appellants Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors. Respondents, decided on 9/1/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 18 — whether and, if any, to what extent a Writ Petition will be maintainable at the instance of the respondent- Parishad questioning an award made on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

2003 SCCL.COM 692(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition No. 295 of 1992 (With T.C.(C) Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53 of 1996))
N.D. Jayal and another Petitioners Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 9/1/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 32 — safety and environmental aspects of Tehri Dam.

2003 SCCL.COM 781(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 8609-8613 of 2001 etc. etc. (With C.A. Nos. 8614-8641/2001, 8657-8680/2001, 8642-8652/2001, 8682/2001, 8655/2001, 8653/2001, 8656/2001, 8693-8725/2001, 8726-8735/2001, 8685/2001, 8686/2001, 8688/2001, 8687/2001, 8691/2001, 1388/2002, 2777-2779/2002, 4298-4299/2002, 8032-8036/2003 @ SLP (C) Nos. 14627-14631/2002, 8037/2003 @ SLP (C) Nos. 12988/2002, 621/2003, 8038/2003 @ SLP (C) No. 2909/2003, 8048-8057/2003 @ SLP (C) Nos. 6543-6552/2003, 3712/2003, 4061/2003 and 8040-8047/2003 @ SLP (C) Nos. 3436-3443/2003)
Bhim Singh and Ors. etc. etc. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Respondents, decided on 9/24/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compensation — when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings and when in one such proceeding this Court has already approved the rate fixed then in our view the best method would be to look at the earlier Judgments and Awards. Therefore the High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier Judgments — deductions — what price is fetched after full development cannot be the basis for fixing compensation in respect of land which was agricultural.

2003 SCCL.COM 810(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4722 of 1997)
Delhi Administration and others Appellants Vs. Madan Lal Nangia and others Respondents, decided on 10/8/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Acquisition proceedings — large tracts of land acquired for the planned development of Delhi — acquisition proceedings upheld — a few Writ Petitions, where the lands were evacuse properties, were allowed — acquisition set aside — merely because a property is an evacuee property does not mean that it vest in the Central Government. The Custodian is a statutory authority appointed under the Acts. The Custodian is a distinct person from the Central Government. Merely because a property vests in the Custodian does not mean that the property vest in Central Government. It must be noted that the Custodian is appointed for each State — the Central Government can never acquire its own property. Thus the very fact that Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act provides for acquisition by the Central Government clearly indicates that evacuee properties are not properties of the Central Government. As they are not properties of the government they can be acquired, not just under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, but even under the Land Acquisition Act — even if the evacuees interest was acquired under Section 12, the interest of the private person could have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act — no substance in the submission that the cases of evacuees under the 1959 Notification and under the 1965 Notification must be treated similarly — it is for the Government to decide whether or not an evacuee property is to be left with the Custodian for the purposes of distribution under the various Acts or whether some other public purpose is more important. It would be open to the Government to acquire evacuee property and give to the Custodian compensation for such acquisition. Section 4 Notification dated 23rd January, 1965 not having excluded evacuee properties the Respondents can get to benefit from the fact that in the 1959 Notification evacuee properties had been excluded — the Appellants shall pay to the Respondents who are owners of Khasras Nos. 321 and 322 an additional amount of compensation to be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum, after the expiry of two years from the date of decision of Aflatoon case i.e. 23rd August, 1974 till date of making of Award by the Collector, to be calculated with reference to the market value of these Khasras on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act — so far as the other Khasras are concerned, i.e. Khasra Nos. 313, 319, 323, 324 and 329, there appears to be a doubt as to whether they were, on the date of Notification dated 23rd January, 1965, composite properties and/ or whether they were acquired properties by Notification dated 7th January, 1955 — this is a matter which should have been considered by the High Court.

2003 SCCL.COM 919(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7096 of 2000 (with C.A. Nos. 7097-7098 of 2000))
Smt. Lila Ghosh (Dead) through LR. Shri Tapas Chandra Roy Appellant Vs. The State of West Bengal Respondent, decided on11/18/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Acquisition — compact block of land acquired for specific purpose — land acquired for studio — land not acquired for development — into small plots — belting method not correct one held — there is no frontage on a very wide road and therefore only 5% appreciation can be given for road frontage. However, even the land now acquired is a large piece of land. There must therefore be some deduction for largeness — for largeness a depreciation of 5% can be given — the Reference Court and High Court both fell into error in giving a 10% increase for potentiality. Once potentiality has been taken care of no question arises of giving an additional percentage towards potentiality — there must be a 10% appreciation for largeness. It was pointed out that both the Reference Court and the High Court has given this appreciation. We are unable to understand the submission or the rationale of the Reference Court and the High Court in giving an appreciation of 10% for largeness — the mere fact that the Metro Railway Station has come up would therefore not necessitate giving any appreciation on that account — interest under these Sections can only start running from the date the compensation is payable — compensation, under the Land Acquisition Act, would be payable by virtue of the provisions of Section 17. As in cases under Section 17 compensation is payable interest may run from the date possession was taken. However, this case does not fall into this category.

2003 SCCL.COM 948(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 9205-9207 of 2003)
The Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh Appellant Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. Respondents, decided on 11/21/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compensation — to be paid — the evidence of record shows that the acquired lands were agricultural lands. Obviously, their valuation would differ to a considerable extent from the land used for house sites. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land acquired for the formation of roads and other civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realization of the price, the profits on the venture etc. are to be made — deduction at the rate of 53% from the value indicated in Ex. B/4 would bring the rate per square yard to be around Rs. 40%. The rate is accordingly fixed. The claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard along with statutory entitlements including interest on solatium.

2003 SCCL.COM 959(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4424 of 1997 etc.)
Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Appellant Vs. Supai Munda & Ors. Respondents, decided on 12/5/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Sections 11(2) and 18 — compensation — payment of — it is alleged that the 1st respondent being an illiterate tribal person was coerced to receive the compensation amount without having recorded any protest. It is also alleged that the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not received by the respondent — no occasion for the learned Collector to have recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. There can never be two awards - one under Section 11 of the Act and another under Section 11(2) of the Act over the same land acquired — the court below is directed to proceed to hear the reference application and dispose it of as quickly as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order as the matter is pending since 1992. It is open to the appellants to urge any grounds as are available to them under law.

2003 SCCL.COM 966(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5665 of 2002 (with C.A. No. 5666 of 2002))
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd. Appellant Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr. Respondents, decided on 11/20/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: A) Supreme Court is not bound by the American decisions — American decisions have merely a persuasive value — this Court would not hesitate in borrowing the principles if the same is in consonance with the scheme of Indian law keeping in view the changing global scenario. Global changes and outlook in trade and commerce could be a relevant factor. With the change of time; from narrow and pedantic approach, the Court may resort to broad and liberal interpretation. B) Compulsory third party risk insurance cover — Chapter IV of the Inland Vessels Act provides for a compulsory insurance in terms whereof Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been incorporated by reference — this Court while considering the question of third party insurance in Motor Vehicles has noticed the development of law from the Road Traffic Act, 1930 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the amendments carried out therein from time to time. C) Circulars — issued by the Port Trusts may not determinative — but would a relevant factor. D) Words and Phrases — ‘necessaries’ — whether arrears of insurance premium would come within the term ‘necessaries’ — whether a prudent shipowner would provide for an insurance. A compulsory insurance regime has come into being and keeping in view the changed situation the definition of the expression ‘necessaries’ should also undergo a change — having regard to the changing scenario and keeping in tune with the changes in both domestic and international law as also the statutes adopted by several countries, a stand, however, bold, may have to be taken that unpaid insurance premium of P&I Club would come within the purview of the expression “Necessaries supplied to any ship”. E) Insurance premium — unpaid insurance premium being a maritime claim would be enforceable in India. F) Letters Patent Appeal — Clause 15 — the right of appeal which is provided under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent cannot be said to be restricted — Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not a special statute. Only in a case where there exists an express prohibition in the matter of maintainability of an intra court appeal, the same may not be held to be maintainable. But in the event there does not exist any such prohibition and if the order will otherwise be a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an appeal shall be maintainable — Letters Patent Appeal — maintainability of. G) Preliminary judgment — the order refusing to reject the plaint falls in the category of a preliminary judgment.

2003 SCCL.COM 978(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 14178-14184 of 1996)
Brij Behari Sahai (D) through Lrs. etc. etc. Appellants Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Respondent, decided on 11/28/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1864 — acquisition under — immovable properties, land and buildings were granted by Competent Authority on behalf of the Government of North Western Provinces of British India by a deed dated 24.12.1862 subject only to the conditions stipulated therein — it is also claimed that Rana Paddum Jung Bahadur also took, in addition to these properties, on lease additional extent of lands measuring about 68 Bighas and 7 Biswas on different dates. It is further claimed that in the year 1910 the management of the lands in question was entrusted to the Municipal Board of Allahabad, subsequently came to be renamed as Nagar Mahapalika of Allahabad and the said body had these properties recorded in the name of the descendants of Rana Padam Jung Bahadur in the Property Register of the Nazul section — in the year 1941 the State of U.P. seems to have instituted proceedings to recover the arrears of ground rent due from the heirs of the owners and a suit again seems to have been filed in the year 1959 also for the same purpose admitting the relationship between parties, the Government of U.P. and the heirs of Late Rana to be Lessor and Lessee — the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by the judgment under challenge held that the claimants had no better interest than that of a tenant holding over, which according to the High Court was a precarious possession only and while sustaining the market value of Rs. 33.30 per square yard, set aside the finding of the District Court as to the apportionment of the entire compensation determined to the claimants and restored the apportionment ordered by the Land Acquisition Officer granting six annas share in a rupee to the claimants — the grant made under a document dated 24.12.1862 does not indicate that what was granted was a lease but one in return for the lump sum paid and subject to the continued payment initially of ground rent in relation to a portion and rent for the other and thereafter uniformly for all lands the payment of ground rent as revised, periodically. Since, it was not a lease as such, no duration of time or period seems to have been indicated and there appears to be a conspleupus omission also of any condition or clause enabling re-entry by resumption for one or other reason — Nazul character of the land can be sustained with corresponding rights of perpetual lessee in the appellants/claimants and their predecessor-in-interest, subject of course to the payment of the periodically revised ground rent — the Government while invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring a land in which the Government also had some or other of interest, need not go for acquiring their interest as well — the actual market value determined was that of the acquired properties as a whole and consequently the need for apportionment, inevitably arise — the fixation of apportionment in the ratio of 75% in favour of the claimants and 25% in favour of the State would be just and reasonable — having regard to the fact that the Government’s interest has been fixed at the proportion of 25%, there is no further need or justification to direct the capitalization of the ground rent for further being deducted or directed to be paid by the claimants either from the compensation amount or otherwise, separately — the High Court has committed a patent error of law and misdirected itself in determining the respective rights of the claimants/appellants on the one hand and the Government on the other in the lands in question as well as in restoring the ratio of apportionment made by the Land Acquisition Officer, without any objective consideration of the relevant principles in their proper perspective — the entire compensation awarded shall be distributed among the claimants in the ratio of 75% and the State in the ratio of 25%. The claimants are not bound to pay anything further even by way of capitalization of the ground rent payable.

2003 SCCL.COM 999(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 9734 of 2003)
Panna Lal Ghosh and others Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others Respondents, decided on 12/12/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 18 and 23(2) — notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration under Section 6 made – Land Acquisition Collector made the Award — appellants filed application before the L.A. Judge for enhancement of the compensation — L.A. Judge enhanced the compensation and granted 15% solatium and interest — on appeal to the High Court claim for enhancement dismissed — was the High Court justified in not awarding enhanced compensation? — are the appellants entitled to solatium and interest @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act?

2003 SCCL.COM 1010(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 7678-7683 of 1997)
V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. Appellants Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer Respondents, decided on12/17/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K.Sema.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4(1) — notification under — fixation of market value of the land — the Reference Court also awarded additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act — the High Court fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 30/- per square yard. The High Court also allowed solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for one year from 10.3.1986 to 9.3.1987 and @ 15% from 10.3.1987 till the date of payment. The High Court held that the claimants were not entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1-A) from the date of Notification under Section 4(1) i.e. from 28.2.1990 upto the date of Award dated 28.3.1991 — the acquired land may be having high potential value but that itself per se cannot be claimed to be a developed land. Lots of developmental activities are to be undertaken like laying of roads, sewerage facility, water supply etc. so that the land would be made fit for construction of houses for the needy people, which would require enormous amount of expenditure — no infirmity in the order of the High Court.

2003 SCCL.COM 1022(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 9937 of 2003 (With C.A. Nos. 10062-64, 10061, 10025-60, 9938-10024, 10065-73 of 2003))
Union of India Appellant Vs. Savjiram and another Respondents, decided on 12/17/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Madhya Pradesh Land Acquisition Manual — Paras 43 and 44 — valuation of the lands acquired — the compensation for houses and buildings are required to be calculated on (a) the present value of materials (b) in addition to the cost of construction at present rates. Both the components for working out the compensation relate to present value of the materials and cost of construction at present rates less the value of any materials made over to the proprietor — the calculation has to be done on the basis of the present value or the present rates, as the case may be — both the Reference Court and the High Court do not appear to have taken note of the documents on which reliance is placed by the Union and objectively considered the claims, in detail. In the fitness of things therefore, the Reference Court should decide as to whether there was any removal of the materials as claimed by the appellants or there was no removal as asserted by the claimants-respondents.

2003 SCCL.COM 1056(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1781 of 2000 (With C.A. No. 1782 of 2000))
D.D.A. and others Appellants Vs. Joginder S. Monga and others Respondents, decided on 12/12/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: A) Interest rate — reduced to 9% from 18%. B) Leasehold to freehold — conversion — application to be disposed of expeditiously.

2004 SCCL.COM 26(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 7463 of 1997 (With C.A. Nos. 7459, 7462, 7464 and 7465 of 1997))
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun through its Secretary Appellants Vs. Bipin Kumar and Anr. etc.etc. Respondents, decided on 1/7/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compensation — one of the methods on which market value can be ascertained, is on basis of comparable sale deeds. As has been noticed, the Land Acquisition Officer had taken note of a sale deed of a land situated within the acquired land. That was a comparable sale deed. Further, the respondent had himself purchased a small portion of the acquired land and had tendered his own sale deed as evidence — as per sale instances of the comparable lands the market value, on dates of sales, were in the region of Rs.15.37 to Rs.15.40 per sq. yard — the increase of 15% given by the High Court cannot therefore be said to be unreasonable. Of course, the 15% increase has to be on Rs.15.40 which is the figure shown in the sale deed. It cannot be on Rs.120 as wrongly taken by the High Court — thus taking an increase of 60% over the price of Rs.15.40 per sq. yard the value comes to Rs.24.64 per sq. yard — the respondent will also to be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2004 SCCL.COM 34(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5559 of 2001 (With C.A. Nos. 5562, 5561, 5563-64, 5565-66, 5567-68/2001, 209, 207/2004, 3211/2002, 208 of 2004))
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Appellant Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and another Respondents, decided on 1/13/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: A) Leases — increase in rent — Bombay Port Trust Estate, admeasuring around 720 hectares out of which area under the jurisdiction of BPT is around 336 hectares — occupied by the leasees — leases created long back — rate of return hopelessly inadequate — Kirloskar Consultants appointed — notices issued — writ petitions filed — the Division Bench formed an opinion and expressed it to the parties that the matter should be put to an end and suggested that they would fix a cut-off date and the number of years upto the expiry of which they would direct the lessees to pay the increase in rent at a certain percentage to be decided by them, so that at fixed intervals of years BPT would get permanently an automatic increase in rent at the percentage fixed by them — the Board arrived at a formula which has been termed as ‘compromise proposals’, approved in the meeting of the Board held on August 13, 1991, and submitted to the Court — the matter between the parties has to be decided by treating the Compromise Proposals dated 13th August 1991 as the base. Any going behind would unsettle the settled issues - expressly or by necessary implication — appeal disposed of in terms of the following directions : (i) by this judgment and in these proceedings the controversy as to the rates of rent applicable to the lessees shall be deemed to have been resolved for the period 1.4.1994 to 31.3.2000; (ii) the ‘Compromise Proposals’ as approved by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai in their meeting held on 13.8.1991 which are very fair, just and reasonable, subject to the modification that the revision in rent from 1.4.1994, shall be on the basis of rates of return at 10% for non-residential uses and 8% for residential uses, based on Kirloskar Consultants’ report, instead of 15% and 12% respectively as was suggested in the ‘Compromise Proposals’. The ‘Compromise Proposals’ so modified shall bind the parties, and all the lessees even if not parties to these proceedings in view of the proceedings taken by the High Court under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C.; (iii) the rates of rent for the period upto 31.3.1994 shall remain as suggested in the ‘Compromise Proposals’; (xii) The issue as to the applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, to the Port of Mumbai and the property held by it is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings — (iv) to (xii) refer to the judgment. B) Constitution of India — Article 136 — jurisdiction — it is well-settled that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer a right to appeal on any party; it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. The very conferment of the discretionary powers defies any attempt at exhaustive definition of such power. When no law confers a statutory right to appeal on a party, Article 136 cannot be called in aid to spell out such a right — the practise and experience apart, the framers of the Constitution did design the jurisdiction of this Court to remain an extraordinary jurisdiction whether at the stage of granting leave or at the stage of deciding the appeal itself after the grant of leave. This Court has never done and would never to injustice now allow injustice being perpetuated just for the sake of upholding technicalities — the exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is not dependent on the provisions of Order 41 of the CPC. The Court may frame rules governing its own procedure and practice. No such rule has been framed by the Court which entitles or permits a respondent to file a cross-objection — the cross-objections preferred by the respondent-Trust are dismissed as not maintainable and as also being devoid of any merit.

2004 SCCL.COM 64(Case/Appeal No: Civil appeal No. 3160 of 1998 (with Civil Appeal No. 3161 of 1998))
H.P. Housing Board, Appellant Vs. Bharat S. Negi and Ors. Respondents, decided on 1/27/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – section 4 — land acquired for the purpose of constructing a Social Housing Colony — Award fixing compensation passed — reference — approach of the Reference Court correct — the Respondents/Claimants would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per the provisions of the Act.

2004 SCCL.COM 98(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1077 of 1998)
Chairman, Ludhiana Improvement Trust Appellant Vs. Kanwaljit Singh and others Respondents, decided on 2/4/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – correspondence exchanged between the State Government and the Chairman of the Improvement Trust could not be treated as a decision taken by the Trust to allot five plots to the respondents — learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Improvement Trust had either accepted or endorsed the claim of the respondents for allotment of separate plots to each of the joint holders of the khata of the land acquired. Learned Single Judge further erred in holding that the respondents were at liberty to proceed against the Trust or the present Chairman in accordance with law in case plots were not allotted despite their entitlement to the allotment of plots.

2004 SCCL.COM 169(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7962 of 2001 (With I.A. No. 3 of 2003))
M/s. Green View Tea & Industries Appellant Vs. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and Another Respondents, decided on 2/17/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compensation — appeal by special leave against judgment of the Guwahati High Court dismissing a review application taken by the appellant — when the proposal of acquisition of land was mooted, the Deputy Commissioner himself was of the view that the compensation payable should be at the rate of Rs. 55,000/- per bigha. The State Government considered this and then agreed to the same. Ultimately, this compensation would have to be paid by the beneficiary of the Land Acquisition, namely the oil refinery — unfortunately, the High Court while considering the question of initial compensation amount fixed by the State Government as Rs. 55,000/- per bigha, has treated it as an issued of promissory estoppel and has held against the appellant — the High Court, in fairness and in the interest of justice, ought to have given a second look to its own judgment dated 24.6.1998.

2004 SCCL.COM 259(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5515 of 1997)
R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Appellant Vs. DDA and others Respondents, decided on 3/12/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4(1) and 34 — whether in a case where possession is taken before the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimant (owner of land) is entitled to interest for such anterior period in accordance with Section 34 of the said Act.

2004 SCCL.COM 317(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6493-6494 of 1998 (with C.A. No. 1831 of 2004 @ R.P. (C) No. 408/99 in S.L.P.(C) No. 10943/98))
Kiran Tondon Appellant Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and Another Respondents, decided on 3/23/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: A) Compensation in the case of Land Acquisition – claimant only a lessee of the acquired land — Leasehold rights being limited in nature and entirely different from ownership right, a lessee is not entitled to the entire amount of compensation for the acquired land — the claimant should get 20 per cent of the compensation amount and the balance 80 per cent is payable to the State Government. B) Value of the building — 90 yrs. old — Rs. 60,000 perfectly correct. C) Transfer of properly Act — sections 105, 108 and 111(a) — In view of Section 105 of the said Act the lease of immovable property is a transfer of right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, in consideration of price paid or promised. The rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee are given in Section 108. Section 111(a) clearly lays down that a lease of immovable property shall determine by efflux of the time limited thereby. Therefore, the claimant can in no circumstances be treated to be the owner of the land and his right to receive compensation has to be determined treating him to be the lessee of the property.

2004 SCCL.COM 348(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3105 of 1997 (with C.A. No. 2183 of 1993))
Gaon Sabha and another Appellants Vs. Nathi and others Respondents, decided on 3/23/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4(1), 6 – Land Acquisition – compensation payment — the Gaon Sabha is entitled to entire amount of compensation.

2004 SCCL.COM 484(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 963-64 of 2000 (with C.A. Nos. 967, 968, 970, 976-77, 975, 972, 973, 969, 974, 971, 965, 966/2000 and 6549 of 1999))
State of U.P. and another Appellants Vs. Johri Mal Respondent, decided on 4/21/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure — Section 24 — interpretation of — interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant provisions of Legal Remembrancer’s Manual relating to appointment and renewal of term of the District Government Counsel is in question.

2004 SCCL.COM 530(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3033 of 2004 (with C.A. No. 3034 of 2004))
State of Uttaranchal through Collector, Dehradun and another Appellants Vs. Ajit Singh Bhola and another Respondents with Smt. Prakashwati Bhola Respondent, decided on 5/7/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — interim order passed by the High Court directing the State of Uttranchal either to proceed under the Land Acquisition Act or vacate the premises — possession taken with high handedness and without legal sanction — not persuaded to exercise discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to set aside the interim order passed by the High Court.

2004 SCCL.COM 569(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5422-5423 of 1998)
Meher Rusi Dalal Appellant Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 5/5/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 30 — reference — where parties do not have notice of the acquisition proceedings and/ or their rights come into existence subsequent to the acquisition proceedings the starting point of limitation may be postponed but the reasonable time would be the time set out in Section 18 from the date of the knowledge or from the date they acquire rights, whichever is later — the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the Respondents stands dismissed. We affirm the order of theLand Acquisition Officer dated 26th September, 1997 and hold that the Respondents cannot claim a Reference under Section 30 nor claim apportionment — the Respondents have by adopting multifarious proceedings delayed the payment of amount for a number of years — the Appellants shall be entitled to withdraw the balance amount deposited in the Court without any further delay.

2004 SCCL.COM 573(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2735 of 2004 (with C.A. Nos. 2736, 2738 and 2739 of 2004))
Union of India and others Appellants Vs. Krishan Lal Arneja and others Respondents, decided on 4/28/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 5A and 17(1) and (4) — acquisition proceedings — validity questioned — urgency clause — invoking of — invocation of urgency clause was without justification and was untenable as held in Banwari Lal and Shakuntala Gupta – failure to take timely action for acquisition by the authorities of the Union of India cannot be a ground to invoke the urgency clause to the serious detriment of the right of landowner to raise objections to the acquisition under Section 5-A — ground of delay is not raised by the appellants in the SLP. In this view, the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that the writ petition No. 229 of 1992 ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches cannot be accepted — since the order appointing arbitrator in the cases of Banwari Lal and Shakuntala Gupta is upheld by this Court, we have no good reason to take a different view — very foundation of invoking Section 17 was invalid and unjustified as upheld by this Court in Banwari Lal and Shakuntala Gupta — it cannot be said that in no case, the tenant of the land which is sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Act can challenge the acquisition proceedings — a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired — a tenant having sufficient subsisting interest in the land can challenge the acquisition proceedings — the learned Single Judge did not dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable on the ground that the tenant could not maintain the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court also did not disturb the order of the learned Single Judge — the very same notification being common is quashed at the instance of other writ petitioners. In this view, at this stage the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that writ petition filed by a tenant was not maintainable cannot be accepted.

2004 SCCL.COM 630(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6612 of 2003 (with 6613/2003, 6616-6619/2003, 6759/2003 and 1008/2004))
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer Appellant Vs. Dharmaraddi Venkatearaddi Rangannavar Respondent, decided on 7/15/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: C.P.C. — sections 151 and 152 — applications under the conclusions arrived at by the High Court are correct and sustainable. In the impugned orders the High Court has stated that the applications were made by the respondents under Section 152 of the CPC and that for correction of the mistake in the Awards no limitation has been prescribed. These observations are not correct. The applications were made under Section 151 CPC and they were not made for correction of any arithmetical or clerical errors; they were made only for amending the awards in view of the change brought about by law. Hence the applications were not barred by time — the respondents could not have filed appeals against the original orders passed by the reference court seeking additional market value and interest for the simple reason that the amendment to the Act was brought into force giving additional benefits subsequently but with retrospective effect from the given date — no merit in these appeals.

2004 SCCL.COM 671(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6767 of 2002 [with C.A. Nos. 6768, 6769-6771, 6772, 6774, 6773, 6775, 6778, 6777, 6776, 6780-6784, 6779, 6786, 6785, 6787 of 2002 With C.A. Nos. 4886, 4885, 4894, 4893, 4900, 4892, 4901, 4889, 4890, 4888, 4887, 4891, 4895 & 4899 of 2004 With C.A. Nos. 5266, 2297, 4157, 6923, 8515, 8516, 8932, 8933, 8934, 8935, 8936, 8938 of 2003, 31, 32 & 135 of 2004 and Civil No. 4902 of 2004])
Delhi Development Authority Appellant Vs. Bali Ram Sharma and others Respondents, decided on 8/3/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1898 — Section 4(1) — land acquired – Land Acquisition Collector fixed market value at 8500/- per bigha — on reference Addl. District Judge, Delhi enhanced the compensation fixing the market value at Rs. 76,550 per bigha — on appeal High Court fixed at Rs. 3,45,000/- per bigha — on appeal by DDA, following Karan Singh’s case market value reduced to Rs. 76,550/- per bigha — the respondents are entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation.

2004 SCCL.COM 675(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5708 of 2004 (with C.A. Nos. 5709 of 2002, 8591-8592 of 2003, 4986 of 2004, 4991 of 2004, 4990 of 2004, 4989 of 2004, 4987 of 2004 and 4988 of 2004))
Om Prakash (D) by Lrs. and others Appellants Vs. Union of India and another Respondents, decided on 8/5/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 136 – Land Acquisition 1894 — section 54 — appeal against judgment of Delhi High Court in appeal filed under section 54 for determining the compensation payable — the High Court was justified in assessing the market value at a higher rate on account of some increased potentiality of the lands. If at all, the High Court has erred on the safer side in fixing the market value at Rs. 82,255/- per bigha — the judgment of the High Court requires no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

2004 SCCL.COM 729(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6331 of 2000 ETC. ETC.)
U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Shakti Bhatta Udyog and Others Respondents, decided on 8/19/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – market value of the land acquired, fixed by the High Court @ Rs. 9/- per square yard in the impugned judgment not unreasonable or arbitrary — appeal of UPSIDC dismissed.

2004 SCCL.COM 839(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6288 of 2000)
B.E.M.L. Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka and Others Respondents, decided on9/10/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1844 — Section 5-A — acquisition proceedings challenge to — it is the case of the fifth Respondent that all the cases where Land Acquisition Officer had recommended dropping of acquisition proceedings were similarly situated and there was no reasonable ground, whatsoever, for making a discrimination is his case to continue with the acquisition proceedings — the State Government had acted arbitrarily by failure to apply the same yardstick in respect of the fifth Respondent’s land — no material placed on record to show as to what really moved the Revenue Secretary or the State Government to overrule the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer only with respect to the land of the fifth Respondent — once it is held that the action was discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, then the High Court was justified in quashing the whole proceeding, including the notification under Section 4(1), as prayed for by the fifth Respondent.

2004 SCCL.COM 850(Case/Appeal No: Civil Petition (C) No.344 of 2000)
Defence Enclave Residents Society Petitioner Vs. State of U.P. & Others Respondents, decided on 9/20/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 32 — writ petition under — maintainability of — writ petition is by a society of the residents of a colony known as ‘Defence Enclave’ in Meerut. The respondents to the writ petition are the State of U.P., the Meerut Development Authority and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, U.P. — though under the camouflage of an infringement of fundamental right, is really a contractual dispute pure and simple. As to whether there is a right reserved in the second Respondent to pass on the additional liability to the purchasers, is determined by the terms of the contract between the parties — these are matters requiring detailed evidence, without which a satisfactory adjudication of the dispute is not possible. A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is hardly an occasion for such exercise.

2004 SCCL.COM 857(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6109 of 2004 (C.A. Nos. 6110 to 6123, 6144, 6142, 6127, 6128, 6143, 6140, 6124, 6125, 6129, 6141, 6133, 6126, 6137, 6132, 6130, 6136, 6137, 6139, 6131, 6135, 6134, 6145, 6146, 6147, 6148 of 2004))
Union of India and others Appellants Vs. Mukesh Hans etc. etc. Respondents, decided on 9/17/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 17(4) — interpretation of — the procedure to be followed by the appropriate Government while dispensing with the inquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Act — right of representation and hearing contemplated under Section 5A of the Act is a very valuable right of a person whose property is sought to be acquired and he should have appropriate and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that the acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made — if the appropriate Government decides to take away this minimal right then its decision to do must be based on materials on record to support to same and bearing in mind the object of Section 5A — the findings of the High Court that the decision of the Lt. Governor to dispense with the 5A inquiry suffered from the vice of non-application of mind has to be upheld.

2004 SCCL.COM 907(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6368 of 2004)
Special Land Acquisition Officer Appellant Vs. Indian Standard Metal Co. Ltd. Respondent, decided on 9/30/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – enhanced compensation — grant of — appeal by special leave — against judgment and order in First appeal by Bombay High Court allowing the appeal of the claimants for grant of enhanced compensation — a relevant and germane consideration has not been taken into account by the High Court in deciding the appeal and enhancing the amount of compensation — in the instant case, the acquisition of land is on a large scale of more than 2 kilometers, and as such, the instances of small pieces of land would not be of much assistance to the claimant — the High Court ought not to have given undue importance to sale instances. Since the High Court failed to consider documentary evidence as also the fact of non-production of sale deeds by the Company and also the evidence of two witnesses for the claimants in its proper perspective — decision of the High Court set aside.

2004 SCCL.COM 913(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5025 of 1999 (with C.A. No. 5026 of 1999))
Des Raj (deceased) through Lrs. and others Appellants Vs. Union of India and another Respondents, decided on 10/1/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 — land acquired — Award made fixing the compensation @ Rs. 2000/- per bigha — sought reference under section 18 — the appellants in these cases did seek for reference under Section 18 of the Act; filed appeals before the High Court and after the High Court delivered the judgment on 11.10.1984, did not challenge the same. The applications were not made under Section 28-A of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation also in these cases — these are not the fit cases to exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

2004 SCCL.COM 936(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6986 of 1999 (with C.A. No. 3599/2003, 6987/99, 9779/03, 9781/03, 9782/03, 9783-9784/03, 9785/03, 9786/03, 9787-9791/03, 9792-9798/03, 9799/03, 9800-9801/03, 9802/03, 9803/03, 9804-9805/03, 9806-9807/03, 9808/03, 9809-9810/03, 9811-9812/03, 9813-9814/03, 9815-9816/03, 9817/03, 9818/03, 9820/03, 9821-9822/03, 9823/03, 9824/03, 9825/03, 9826/03, 9827/03, 9828/03, 9828/03, 9829/03, 9830/03/9831/03, 9832 to 9840/03, 9842-43/03, 9846/03, 9847/03, 9864 to 9874 /03, 9880 to 89/03, 9891-9893/03, 1994 to 1997/03, 9899/03, 9900-9901/03, 9909/03, 9911/03, 9912/03, 9916/03, 9917/03, 9918/03, 10090/03, 10103/03, 10105/03))
Cement Corporation of India Ltd. etc. etc. Appellants Vs. Purya and others etc. etc. Respondents, decided on 10/7/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 51A — scope of — conflict between two 3-Judge Benches of this Court — matter before the larger bench — under Section 51A of the LA Act a presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the document is permitted to be raised, the same can be relied upon only if the said presumption is not rebutted by other evidence. In the said view of the matter we are of the opinion the decision of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V. Narasaiah lays down the correct law — The facts of the other cases being different, we think it appropriate that it is not necessary for a 5-Judge Bench to decide the issues involved in these cases, because the question of law has been decided in C.A. 6986/1999. Therefore, these appeals should be placed before an appropriate Bench of this Court for final disposal.

2004 SCCL.COM 945(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 689 of 1998 (with C.A. Nos. 5385/98 and 5389-5390 of 2002))
P.S. Sathappan (D) by Lrs. Appellants Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. and others Respondents, decided on 10/7/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure — Section 104 — Interpretation of Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) vis-a-vis Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Madras is in question — Section 104 itself contemplates different rights of Appeals. Appeals saved by Section 104(1) can be filed. Those not saved will be barred by Section 104(2) — the Order of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is hereby set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. The matters are remitted back to the High Court for decision on merits.

2004 SCCL.COM 954(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2002)
M/s. Girnar Traders Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others Respondents, decided on 10/14/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — whether all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 can be read into the provisions under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for an acquisition thereunder.

2004 SCCL.COM 1030(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos.7518-7519 of 2004)
Jaya Chandra Mohapatra Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Rayagada Respondent, decided on 11/22/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Satosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4(1) — land acquired by State — appellant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation filed application for enhancement — the Appellant filed an application for amendment for grant of benefit under Section 28 of the Act which was allowed by the Reference Court in terms of an order dated 30th July, 1993 — the Executing Court thus proceeded to pass the impugned judgment on a wrong premise. The Executing Court keeping in view its limited jurisdiction could not have gone into the question as to whether the Reference Court was correct in passing the order dated 8.10.1996 amending the decree or not — the court could not have permitted the State to reagitate the aid question before the Executing Court by filing an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise. In a case of this nature the principle of estoppel by records shall come into play — the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly.

2004 SCCL.COM 1036(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.6276 of 1999)
M/s. Ahad Brothers Appellant Vs. State of M.P. and Another Respondents, decided on 11/19/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4(1) — whether the High Court was right in going into the question of title over the property acquired by the State and in recording a finding that the appellant had only leasehold interest in the said land; (2) whether the High Court was right in interfering with the market value of the land determined by the Reference Court.

2004 SCCL.COM 1042(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.6546 of 1999 (with CA. No. 4110 of 2000))
Govt. of A.P. and Another Appellants Vs. Syed Akbar Respondent, decided on 11/19/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 18 and 54 A — enhancement of compensation — sought for — when the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act which is vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances, the question of reconveying the land as claimed by the respondent could not be accepted in view of the clear position of law — whether the unused remaining land out of the acquired land was sufficient or not for the purpose of construction of Mandal Revenue Office could not be decided by the High Court. It was for the competent authorities to decide about the same — no material was placed on record to attribute any mala fides on the part of the authorities or to support the case that the proposal to build a Mandal Revenue Office was an after-thought — difficult to sustain the impugned order. Consequently, it is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.

2004 SCCL.COM 1048(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6142 of 2002 (with C.A. No. 6143 of 2002))
Fulchand Bhagwandas Gugale and another Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents, decided on 11/25/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 6 — order of the Additional Commissioner Nasik, dated 14.2.1985 as well as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act set aside — the High Court seems to have completely erred in no noticing that the Commissioner purported to exercise a power which he did not possess under the Act — not possible to uphold the order made by the Additional Commissioner as sustainable under any provision of the Act.

2004 SCCL.COM 1095(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2504 of 1999)
Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) by Lrs. Appellants Vs. Collector Land Acquisition Tehsil & District Doda Respondent, decided on 12/10/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 — land acquired by notification issued by the State Government for the purpose of establishing a base camp of Sheep Breeding Farm — compensation — the appellant is entitled to have his claim in respect of the trees on the land acquired adjudicated by the Reference Court — the determination of market value of land in Khasra No.804 at Rs.1000/- per Kanal and in respect of land falling in Khasra No.805 at Rs.900/- per Kanal, as determined by the High Court — upheld by the Court.

2004 SCCL.COM 1096(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5591 of 1999(with C.A. Nos. 5592, 5593, 5594, 5595, 5596 & 5597 of 1999))
M/s. Anand Buttons Ltd. etc. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others Respondent, decided on 12/10/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 15A — acquisition proceedings challenged — whether acquisition proceedings were vitiated by discrimination and arbitrariness and, thus, violative of the Fundamental Rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India — the authority, who has to carry out the planned development of the industrial estate, is in the best position to judge as to which land can be exempted from the acquisition without jeopardizing the development scheme. It is not possible for the court to sit in appeal over the exercise of such satisfaction by the authority vested with the task of implementing the development plan — it is trite law that not only land but also structure on land can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a given set of circumstances certain land should be exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some construction had been carried out, is a matter of policy, and not of law — merely because a representation was made by the Director, Town and Country Planning, that upon gift of certain land to the Gram Panchayat for widening of the passage, permission for change of user of land would be granted, such a promise is not one capable of being enforced against the State Government.

2004 SCCL.COM 1118(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8245 of 2004)
Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary Appellant Vs. Sri S.T. Pompanna Setty Respondent, decided on12/17/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compensation — fruit bearing trees — on the basis of yield and gross income, the Reference Court granted compensation to the claimant which was confirmed by the High Court — the case on hand relates to fruit bearing trees and not agriculture — there was no question of deduction of any amount towards expenses and the orders passed by the Reference Court and by the High Court cannot be said to be incorrect — the ratio laid down in Rama Rana would not stricto sensu apply in the present case inasmuch as in fruit growing trees the expenses would not be 50% as held by this Court — it, therefore, cannot be said that by not deducting the amount of expenses for cultivation, the courts below had committed any illegality — normally in the cases where compensation is awarded on yield basis, multiplier of 10 is considered proper and appropriate. In the case on hand, multiplier of 15 has been applied which is on a higher side — ends of justice would be met if we hold that the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 4,75,000/- (Rupees four lacs seventy five thousand only) along with interest as awarded to him by the Reference Court as well as by the High Court.

2005 SCCL.COM 7(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6220 of 1999)
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and Another Appellants Vs. Sangh Dass and Another Respondents, decided on 1/5/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme — granting of certain benefits — appellant — corporation a Government company impugns the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court granting certain benefits — the writ petitioner was before the High Court only for claiming his rights flowing from the Resettlement and rehabilitation scheme. The High Court justifiably took the view that it was not open to the present appellant to challenge the ownership of the first respondent especially when he had been paid the compensation for acquisition of the land under the orders of the District Judge, Rampur — the view taken by the High Court is correct and needs to interference. The whole purpose of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation scheme was to ensure that families rendered landless by the acquisition of land were made available some benefits apart from the compensation payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act — the High Court was justified in concluding that, irrespective of the dispute between the State Government and the said Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh, the first respondent was entitled to the benefits flowing from the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme.

2005 SCCL.COM 8(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6218-6219 of 1999)
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and another Appellants Vs. Dila Ram and others Respondents, decided on 1/5/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — appellant a statutory corporation notification issued — Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme — the High Court allowed the writ petitions by taking the view that the benefits under the resettlement and rehabilitation plan had to be given to the present respondents as they were living separately from the family, and granted the reliefs sought — the scheme emphasizes joint holding and family relationship. As long as these existed, the fact that any particular person was residing separately, is of no consequence — Durga Singh was a part of the landless family whose land has been acquired. Consequently, he having been first to apply, was given the benefit under the resettlement and rehabilitation scheme. There was no further obligation on the part of the corporation to provide any more benefits thereunder — it is open to the other members of the family to take appropriate legal action as they may be advised to seek a share in the benefits of the resettlement and rehabilitation scheme which were made available by the appellant to Durga Singh.

2005 SCCL.COM 19(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.1022 of 2000)
H.P. State Electricity Board and Others Appellants Vs. Shiv K. Sharma and Others Respondents, decided on 1/10/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 136 — the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Shimla, challenges by this appeal the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissing its second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure — the High Court considered several judgments cited before it and drew a distinction between an easement of an ordinary nature in respect of which compensation could have been claimed in the Land Acquisition proceedings and an easement of necessity like a right of passage and held that right of passage by way of necessity, as enjoyed by the respondent-plaintiffs over the land of Rikhi Ram and now acquired by the appellant-defendants, was not extinguished by reason of acquisition — the distinction drawn by the High Court about non-extinguishment of the right of easement arising out of necessity appears to be justified both on principle and precedent — the judgment of the High Court under appeal is not one which is required to be interfered with in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

2005 SCCL.COM 139(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1391 of 1999)
Swasthya Raksha Samiti Rati Chowk Appellant Vs. Chaudhary Ram Harakh Chand (D) by Lrs. and others Respondents, decided on2/22/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963 — Rule 4(2)(iii) — nature of enquiry under — Rule (4) is not only mandatory but that the notice of the said enquiry has to be given to the land owners. The above judgments, however, have not taken into consideration an earlier 5-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Babu Barkya Thakur vs. The State of Bombay & Ors. (1961 (1) SCR 128) — matter referred to five Judge Bench.

2005 SCCL.COM 147(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6746 of 1999 (with C.A. No. 6747, 6836 of 1999))
U.P. Parents Association and others Appellants Vs. S.K. Bhargava and others etc. etc. Respondents, decided on 2/22/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 — notification for acquiring the land for school issued notification under section 6 followed — notifications challenged as acquisition was for private school — acquisition quashed by the High Court during pending appeals state proposed to act under section 48 to de-notify the land from acquisition — the respondents concede that acquisition in respect of the acquired land, except land measuring about 6000 sq.ft. which has been released in exercise of power under Section 48(1) of the Act, may be upheld — impugned judgment and order in so far as it relates to the lands measuring about 17000 sq.ft., is set aside.

2005 SCCL.COM 200(Case/Appeal No: I.A. No. 10 in I.A. No.4 and I.A. No. 11 in I.A. No. 7 W.P. (C) No. 328 of 2002)
Narmada Bachao Andolan Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 3/15/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B.Sinha.
Subject Index: Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 — Section 5(2) read with section 5(4) — an Award made by the Tribunal — the award inter alia contained mandatory provisions containing Clause XI sub-clause (IV)(6)(ii) stating that no submergence of any area would take place unless the oustees are rehabilitated — the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a Non-Governmental Organization which has been in the forefront of the agitation against the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam filed a writ petition before this Court raising several issues including relief and rehabilitation — as the directions of this Court were not implemented in letter and spirit, applications were filed by the petitioners herein for directing the Respondents to rehabilitate each of them in accordance with the NWDTA and the orders of this Court — (i) whether there exists a distinction between temporarily and permanently affected persons in the NWDT Award as well as the judgment of this Court? — (ii) whether adult sons are entitled to a minimum of 2 hectare of land as per NWDT Award and judgment of this Court? — (iii) whether those adult sons who became landholders since their fathers passed away, are entitled to the benefit of alternate lands, in place of the acquired lands standing in the names of their deceased fathers?

2005 SCCL.COM 233(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos.2266-2268 of 2005)
State of Karnataka and Another Appellants Vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Others Respondents, decided on 3/30/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 18 — respondent filed application for reference to Civil Court claiming enhanced compensation — the condition precedent for maintaining application for reference under Section 18 is non-acceptance of the award by the awardee — the Division Bench acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge was right in concluding that the writ petitions were not maintainable.

2005 SCCL.COM 274(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.2547 of 2005 (With C.A.Nos.2548, 2549, 2550, 2551, 2552 and 2553 of 2005))
Indore Development Authority Appellant Vs. Srikrishna Oil Mills and Others Respondents, decided on 4/12/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4 and 6 — notifications under — quashed by the High Court by the impugned order — the petitioners challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Town Development Scheme No.78 prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 — notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued and published in accordance with law. Those actions also cannot be termed illegal — no substance in the contentions of the respondents that Scheme No. 78 was illegal or unlawful — all the appeals deserve to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside and scheme No. 78 prepared and approved by the Indore Development Authority is held legal, valid and in accordance with law. All consequential actions taken in pursuance of the scheme are also held legal and lawful.

2005 SCCL.COM 285(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.2485 of 2001 (With C.A.Nos.2486-2487 of 2001))
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs. Appellant Vs. State of Gujarat Respondent, decided on 4/13/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compensation determination of — interest of justice would be subserved if compensation is determined at the rate of Rs.160/- per square meter for the large plots and Rs.175/- per square meter for the small plots — the claimants - Appellants, however, would be entitled to interest on solatium as the said question is no longer res integra.

2005 SCCL.COM 288(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1551 of 2000)
Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and another Appellants Vs. District Registrar Co-operative Societies (Urban) and others Respondents, decided on 4/15/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – Housing Co-operative Society applied for acquisition of certain lands for the purpose of erecting houses — the finding that the restriction placed on rights of a member of the Society to deal with the property allotted to him must be deemed to be invalid as an absolute restraint of alienation is erroneous — the right of the Society to insist that the property has to be dealt by respondent No.2 only in terms of the bye-laws of the Society and assigned either wholly or in parts only to persons qualified to be members of the Society in terms of its bye-laws.

2005 SCCL.COM 327(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 848 of 1999)
Bijay Kumar Saraogi Appellant Vs. State of Jharkhand Respondent, decided on 4/26/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act as amended — sections 23(2) and 29 — benefit under — CPC section 152 — Section 152 C.P.C. can be invoked for the limited purposes of correcting clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. The Section cannot be invoked for claiming a substantive relief which was not granted under the decree, or as a pretext to get the order which has attained finality reviewed. 

2005 SCCL.COM 426(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.4461 of 2005)
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Appellants Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao Respondent, decided on 7/25/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: A) Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 — Land reform — fraud — order determining ceiling limit of land and surrender of excess land of declarant — respondent passed after enquiry — subsequently discovered land surrendered previously acquired under Land Acquisition Act — notice for declaration of alternative lands — challenged — held tribunal has power to reopen matter, which was accepted after enquiry, as fraud committed by declarant is apparent on the face of record — appeal allowed. B) Fraud — fraud in relation to a statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of that statue — suppression of a material document would also amount to fraud on the Court.

2005 SCCL.COM 443(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 443 of 2001 (with C.A. Nos. 490, 493, 492, 494, 489, 483, 484, 495, 485, 486, 491, 487 and 488 of 2001))
Ishwar Dutt Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another Respondents, decided on 8/2/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Res judicata — principle of — award passed taking into consideration directions issued by High Court — award not challenged — attained finality — subsequently decision of High Court challenged — held principle of Res judicata applies to different proceedings arising out of the same course of action and also apply in different stages in the same proceedings — subsequent judgment of High Court barred by principle of res judicata.

2005 SCCL.COM 452(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1067-1068 of 2001 (with CA No. 4427-4435 of 2001, CA No.4572 of 2005 @ SLP(C) No.15709 of 2005 @ CC 4827 of 2001, CA No……….. of 2005 @ SLP(C) No. 8773 of 2002, CA No. 1734 of 2003 CA No. 3236 of 2005, CA No. 3237 of 2005, CA No. 3238 of 2005, CA No. 3239 of 2005 and CA Nos. 3395-3399 of 2002.))
R.P. Singh Appellant Vs. Union of India and others Respondent, decided on 8/4/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4 — enhancement in compensation demanded on ground that land acquired being sold at a much higher rate — compensation awarded treating land as agricultural — no other potential use or special damage shown — land being sold 40 years later after being developed — no case for enhancement of compensation made out — solatium @ 30%, as per amendment in Act, on amount of compensation awarded.

2005 SCCL.COM 468(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2004 (with C.A. Nos. 174-181, 1986-2012, 2144-2146/2004 and 687-689 of 2005))
G.M. O.N.G.C. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others Respondents, decided on 8/8/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Articles 13 and 1462 – Land Acquisition Act — Sections 23 and 54 — appeal — judgment on enhancement of compensation solely on basis of testimony of witnesses — principles enumerated under section 23 not taken into account in determining amount of compensation — appellants not represented in instant case as enhanced amount insufficient to contest the cases — hence refund not allowed — appeals dismissed.

2005 SCCL.COM 471(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 3274-3475 of 2003 (with C.A. Nos. 3076, 3080, 3088, 3090, 3093, 3094, 3096, 3101, 3280-3294, 3323-3341/2003 and 3614 of 2005))
Govt. of A.P. and others Appellants Vs. Kollutla Obi Reddy and others Respondents, decided on 8/10/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4(1) and 6 — delayed challenge to notification under section 4(1) and declaration under 6 of the Act — writ petition not maintainable. B) Constitution of India — Article 226 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 18 — reference under 18 of the Act pending — High court while entertaining writ petition gave no reasons for same — fresh awards passed in view of impugned judgment set aside — original reference revised — appeals allowed.

2005 SCCL.COM 499(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5273 of 2005)
Mandir Shree Sitaramji @ Shree Sitaram Bhandar Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others Respondents, decided on8/24/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1984 — Sections 4 and 48 — notification dated 13.11.1959 - acquisition for ‘planned development of Delhi’ — portions given to various societies for purpose of development does not mean that acquisition is for the societies - also instant scheme applicable to persons / agencies owning and possessing land — possession already taken from appellants hence scheme not applicable to their lands — appeals dismissed.

2005 SCCL.COM 540(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 867 of 2003)
Mahadeo Bajirao Patil Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents, decided on 9/6/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 18 — reference — limitation — notice under section 12(2) of the Act duly received by applicant - appellant — period for filing application for making reference in such case would be six weeks as contemplated under section 18(2)(b) — application filed beyond prescribed period — barred by limitation — appeal dismissed.

2005 SCCL.COM 541(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 8818-8830 of 2003)
Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and Others Appellants Vs. State of Gujarat through Deputy Collector Modasa and Another Respondents, decided on 9/6/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 18 — Reference — Limitation — no notice under section 12(2) of the Act served on appellants nor were they present when award was made — appellants came to know of award when compensation was being paid — application for reference made within six months of date of knowledge of award — not time barred — matter remitted back for disposal of appeal on merits in accordance with law.

2005 SCCL.COM 549(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6825-6826 of 2003 (with C.A. Nos. 6827-6832/2003, 950, 2661, 5566-5569 of 2005))
Union of India Appellant Vs. Pramod Gupta (D) by Lrs. and others Respondents, decided on 9/7/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: (A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 18, 25, 28, 34, 53 and 54 — Acquisition of land — determination of market value — right over minerals — enhancement of compensation — observations made — principles of estoppel and waiver apply in relation to a consent award — waiver of right to claim interest upheld — awards set aside — mater remanded back for fresh consideration — (B) Res judicata — scope of — principle not applicable where there is inherent lack jurisdiction.

2005 SCCL.COM 555(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1428 of 2004 (with C.A. Nos. 4117/2003, 1429-1435, 2747-2751, 2935, 2947-2957, 3075-3076, 3079, 3083, 3170-382, 3186-3357, 3359-3369, 3371-3382, 3384-3394, 3396-3402, 3426-3438, 3443-3454, 3463, 4908, 7759-62, 7765-7795 of 2004 and C.A. Nos. 5546-5551, 5553-54, 5557-60, 5562 and 5561 of 2005))
Ranvir Singh and another Appellants Vs. Union of India Respondent, decided on 9/7/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: (A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 18 — determination of market value — factors — value fixed by High Court relying upon brochure issued by DDA and circular letters issued fixing value of land for purpose of computing stamp duty — no fixed criteria for determining increase in value of land at a fixed rate — matter remanded back for fresh consideration. (B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 51A — Secondary evidence — admissibility — xerox copies of sale deeds admissible in absence of any primary evidence for determination of market value of land.

2005 SCCL.COM 580(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2254 of 2005)
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others Respondents, decided on 9/20/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 5-A and 6 – Land Acquisition – an effective opportunity of hearing must be granted to owner of land / interested parties — formation of opinion as regard the public purpose and suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind — order of acquisition must be supported either by reasons stated in the order of the grounds available therefor in the records — appeals dismissed.

2005 SCCL.COM 619(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 971 of 2003)
Bangalore Development Authority and others Appellants Vs. R. Hanumaiah and others Respondents, decided on 10/3/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: (A) Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 48 — no provision under the Act on the rules framed thereunder enabling developmental authority to re-company the land acquired for developmental work — once possession is taken, land vests with Government who cannot withdraw from acquisition — vesting process does not become in complete on ground that land owners are asked to be-deposit amount of compensation — appeal allowed. (B) Doctrine of Promissory estoppel — scope of — exceptions.

2005 SCCL.COM 698(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 1999 (with C.A. Nos. 4459/1999, 607-609/2000, 5547/2000, 1566/2000 and 1567/2001))
State of Karnataka Appellant Vs. Laxuman Respondent, decided on 10/25/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 18 (Karnataka Amendment) — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — right of Deputy Commissioner to make the reference on an application of the claimant under Section 18 stands extinguished on the expiry of 3 years and 90 days from the date of application for reference — right of claimant to move the Court for compelling a reference thereafter also stands extinguished — Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application while approaching the Court under Section 18(3)(b) of the L.A. Act — Appeals allowed.

2005 SCCL.COM 734(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 3343-3554 of 1999 (with C.A. Nos. 2640-2642, 3309-3340, 3341-3342, 3555, 3556-3586/99, 5163/2002, 3009-3017, 3057-3059, 3152-3180 and 3060-3061 of 2003))
Union of India Appellant Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others Respondents, decided on 10/26/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 23 (1-A) — market value of lands comprised in 5 different villages fixed at uniform rate — challenged — belting method for valuation discarded having regard to local features and circumstances — as lands involved in acquisition proceedings had similar potential for commercial exploitation hence can be consolidated into a single unit as the entire area is in stage of development — appeals dismissed.

2005 SCCL.COM 762(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1500 of 2004 (With C.A. Nos. 1501, 1502/2004 and 6651 of 2005))
Pattammal and others Appellants Vs. Union of India and another Respondents, decided on 11/8/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4(1), 18 and 51A — fixation of market value — Reference Court fixed market value upon examination of location, potential value of acquired lands, contemporaneous sale deeds and the fact that there had been a steep escalation in the price of lands in the immediate vicinity — procedure correct — no justification given by High Court for reduction of market value — awards of Reference Court restored — appeals allowed.

2006 SCCL.COM 60(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2013-2015 of 1999 (with C.A. Nos. 2016-2023 of 1999 and 2073-2077 of 2000))
Smt. Bailamma @ Doddabailamma (Dead) and others Appellants withSri M. Kondandaraju and others Appellants with Smt. Muthamma etc. etc. Appellants   Vs. Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society and others Respondents with The State of Karnataka and others Respondents, decided on 1/31/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 11 and 11A — award — Collector made and signed award and same was approved by Government within two years of its date of last publication — Collector not required under the Act to give notice to interested persons of the date of pronouncement of the award — appeals dismissed.

2006 SCCL.COM 129(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 2006 (with C.A. Nos. 1289 to 1292 of 2006))
Rishi Pal Singh and others Appellants Vs. Meerut Development Authority and another Respondents, decided on 2/24/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 18 — Reference — determination of market value — if appropriate exemplars are not available exemplars of smaller plots can be considered — exemplars of acquiring authority not proved on record, hence cannot be looked into — matter remanded back to High Court for decision on merits.

2006 SCCL.COM 168(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1508 of 2006)
State of U.P. and others Appellants Vs. Kashi Prasad Dwivedi and others Respondents, decided on 3/6/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compensation denied by State of U.P. on ground that predecessor of petitioners had sold land in question to the State by a registered sale deed — matter remitted back to High Court — State to file a detailed counter affidavit — if plea of State is found justified, then respondents will not be entitled to any compensation — appeal allowed.

2006 SCCL.COM 174(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4010-4032 of 1997)
Union of India Appellant Vs. Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. & Others Respondents, decided on 3/1/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4(1), 17, 18 and 28A — re-determination of compensation — amount payable u/s 28A is the amount which is finally payable as compensation as decreed by Reference Court and modified by superior Courts in appeal — in case of reduction of compensation by superior Courts applicants u/s 28A may be directed to refund excess amount — appeals allowed. 

2006 SCCL.COM 218(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1876 of 2006)
The Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd Appellant Vs. C. Govinda Padayachi and Another Respondents, decided on 4/3/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 28 and 33 — compensation payable to respondent quantified by Court at Rs. 1,05,548 to include solatium and interest — hence provisions of Sections 28 and 33 not applicable to instant case — respondent not entitled to interest on amount of compensation, but only entitled to interest on delayed payment of quantified amount — Rs. 83,985 to be refunded to appellant — respondent entitled to balance of Rs. 21,562 with interest @ 15% — appeal allowed.

2006 SCCL.COM 265(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3492-3494 of 2005 (with Civil Appeal Nos. 3497/05, 3842-3844/05, 3848-3884/05, 3889-4127/05, 4128-4366/05, 4575-4576/05, 5399-5401/05, 5402/05, 5746- 5747/05, 5759/05, 5797-5799/05, 6098/05, 6099/05, 5092-5093/05, 7024- 7040/05, 7591/05, 7592/05, 61/06, 73/06, 74-76/06 and Civil Appeal Nos. 2141 of 2006))
State of Karnataka and another Appellants Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others Respondents, decided on 4/20/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: (A) Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 226 and 300A — Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 — Framework Agreement (FWA) challenged — FWA approved by State Government — present litigation barred by res judicata as all questions have been previously decided by Supreme Court — no allegation of fraud or mala fide proved — appeals dismissed. (B) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 — Section 28(i) — notice of acquisition — as project is an integrated project, acquisition of land away from main alignment of land would also be required — hence acquisition upheld. 

2006 SCCL.COM 275(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 2004)
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Appellant Vs. Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Respondent, decided on4/24/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — land of co-operative society acquired — allotment cancelled — challenged by society in a writ petition — allowed — society despite repeated requests did not file list of all its members — gross misrepresentation made by society about acquisition of land by it and false claim of allotment set up — complex questions raised — writ petition not maintainable — appeal allowed.

2006 SCCL.COM 276(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7105 of 1999)
A.P. Nayar and others Appellants Vs. Reha Min. Emp. Coop. House Bldg. Soc. Ltd. and others Respondents, decided on 4/24/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Evacuee Interest (Specification) Act, 1951 — Section 10 — Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 — Sections 3 — land purchased by appellants’ predecessor in interest in 1955 — land had been previously acquired and vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property — appellants did not asserted their right over property till 1979 — right of appellants over land limited to grant of compensation under 1948 Act — appeal dismissed.

2006 SCCL.COM 389(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7040 of 2000)
Om Prakash & Others Appellants Vs. Dir Bahar & Others Respondents, decided on 5/19/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 18 — reference — compromise arrived at between the parties for sharing the compensation — in view of the compromise parties given liberty to withdraw the compensation — appeal disposed of.

2006 SCCL.COM 407(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3890-3891 of 1999)
The State of Punjab Appellant Vs. Harchal Singh (Dead) through LRs. Respondent, decided on 5/23/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 4 — notification issued for acquisition — order of High Court awarding compensation at Rs. 1,75,000 per acre challenged — land acquired for industrial purpose — land was extremely fertile and irrigated by a sewerage drain — sale price of plots sold in same locality taken into consideration — compensation awarded by High Court not excessive — appeals dismissed.

2006 SCCL.COM 567(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 2006)
State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appellants Vs. Gosikhurd Prakalpgrast Kalyankari Samiti & Ors. Respondents, decided on 7/27/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compensation — payment of — to persons whose lands have been taken — further direction to take immediate steps — the parties may urge their contentions with regard to payment of interest before the High Court hearing the Writ Petition, and the High Court, having regard to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act will decide the said question in accordance with law – Land AcquisitionOfficer is directed to take immediate steps to make the payment.

2006 SCCL.COM 596(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2006)
Ganpatibai and another Appellants Vs. State of M.P. and others Respondents, decided on 8/23/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 6 — notifications issued under — challenged — writ application dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and also on the ground that the award had already been passed — Division Bench concurred with the view — the stand that five years after the filing of the suit, the decision was rendered does not in any way help the appellant — that being so, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were justified in holding that the writ petition was highly belated.

2006 SCCL.COM 686(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3270 of 2003 (with Transferred Cases (C) Nos. 101 and 102 of 2006))
Arun Kumar and others Appellants Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 9/15/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Income Tax Rules, 1962 as amended by the Income Tax (Twenty-second) Amendment Rules, 2001 which amended the method of computing valuation of perquisites under section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — Rule 3 — validity of — according to the appellants, amended Rule 3 is inconsistent with the parent Act and also ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

2006 SCCL.COM 815(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4570 of 2006 (with C.A. Nos. 4549, 4548 and 4547 of 2006))
Gurpreet Singh Appellant Vs. Union of India Respondent, decided on 10/19/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble The Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act No. 68 of 1984 — what is the rule of appropriation in execution of money decrees? Is the rule the same in the case of an award decree under the Land Acquisition Act or, is there anything in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, Act 68 of 1984 making that rule inapplicable or not wholly applicable? — the essential ratio in the Prem Nath Kapur on appropriation being at different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention — an execution court cannot go behind the decree.

2006 SCCL.COM 825(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4632 of 2006)
Shyamali Das Appellant Vs. Illa Chowdhry and others Respondents, decided on 11/1/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 18 — award — reference — the Act is a complete code by itself. It provides for remedies not only to those whose lands have been acquired but also those who claim the awarded amount or any apportionment thereof. A Land AcquisitionJudge derives its jurisdiction from the order of reference. It is bound thereby. Its jurisdiction is to determine adequacy or otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under the award made by the Collector. It is not within its domain to entertain any application of pro intersse suo or in the nature thereof — it is one thing to say that a proceeding under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act was maintainable at the instance of the appellant. She was given an opportunity to file the same by the Calcutta High Court in terms of its order dated 22.09.2000 — prima facie the appellant cannot be said to have any right title and interest in the property.

2006 SCCL.COM 927(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6756 of 2003)
Daulat Singh Surana and others Appellants Vs. First Land Acquisition Collector and others Respondents, decided on 11/13/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 6 — notification under — challenged — no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, particularly, when the Division Bench had given liberty to the appellant to recover rent, compensation or damages in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

2006 SCCL.COM 1069(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5354 of 2006)
P.K. Sreekantan and others Appellants Vs. P. Sreekumaran Nair and others Respondents, decided on 12/4/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 30 — there is no time limit for seeking reference under Section 30 of the Act, though it should always be done within a reasonable time. The reasonableness of time flows from the need for a finality to judicial proceedings — it would be appropriate to permit the appellants to make an application before the competent Land Acquisition Authority seeking reference in terms of Section 30 of the Act — the High Court’s view that it was impermissible to deal with the matter covered under Section 30 of the Act while dealing with a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act is irreversible.

2006 SCCL.COM 1077(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5785 of 2006 (with Civil Appeal Nos. 5786-5805 of 2006))
Patel Joitaram Kalidas and others Appellants Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and another Respondents, decided on 12/13/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 23(2) — payment of interest — whether the appellants herein are entitled to maintain an application for special leave before this Court impugning the judgment and order of the High Court which affirmed the findings of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in appeals preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer — the appellants are entitled to interest on the amounts payable to them under Section 23 (1A) and Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

2006 SCCL.COM 1086(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1330 of 1997 (with Civil Appeal Nos. 1332 - 1382, 1383, 1384 - 1515, 1516 - 1535 and 1331 of 1997))
U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Appellant with Rishabh Ispat Limited Appellant with Bikhu Ram Jain & others,with Sharda Jain Appellants Vs. Rishabh Ispat Ltd. and others with Pitalu and others, with State of Uttar Pradesh, with Tikkam Singh and others Respondents, decided on 12/15/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir .
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — compensation to be paid to the land owners — notifications issued — validity — the principles laid down in Raghunath clearly apply to the facts of the instant case and, therefore, the submission urged on behalf of the claimants must be rejected.

2006 SCCL.COM 1102(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6497-6500 of 1994 (with Civil Appeal No. 5276 of 2006))
The Deputy Director Land Acquisition Appellant Vs. Malla Atchinaidu and others Respondents, decided on 12/12/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4(1), 6(1) and 17(4) — land acquired — compensation — matter referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 — whether grievance of claimants amenable for correction under Section 152 CPC — enhancing of compensation — entertaining respondents revision under Section 115 C.P.C.

2006 SCCL.COM 1116(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4409 of 2000)
Chandrika Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and another Appellants Vs. Sarjug Singh and another Respondents, decided on 11/30/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Hindu Succession Act — Section 14(1) — whether the deed of gift executed by Koleshra Devi in respect of her half share of plot No. 901, full share of plot No.902 and three fourth share of plot No. 907 in favour of the appellants herein by deed of gift dated 7.5.1960 was valid in law — as Koleshra Devi, in terms of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1950 became absolute owner of the property and thus she was competent to execute the deed of sale in the year 1960.

2007 SCCL.COM 46(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2007)
Rakesh Kumar Jain and another Appellants Vs. State of U.P. Thr. Collector and another Respondents, decided on 1/5/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — respondent had not resorted to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act — the land owners have been denied the beneficial use of their money — simple interest @ 18% awarded.

2007 SCCL.COM 61(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 324 of 2007)
Ashok Kumar and others Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another Respondents , decided on 1/23/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju .
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4(1) — notification under — validity questioned — stay order — extended — Section 6(1) proviso — is in negative term — mandatory in nature. Any declaration made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 would be void and of no effect. An enabling provision has been made by reason of the explanation appended thereto, but the same was done only for the purpose of extending the period of limitation and not for any other purpose — no warrant for the proposition, as was stated by the High Court that unless an order of stay passed once even for the limited period is vacated by an express order or otherwise; the same would continue to operate.  

2007 SCCL.COM 88(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2086-2087 of 2004)
The Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society by its Secretary Appellant Vs. V. Chandrappa and others Respondents, decided on2/2/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – notification — mala fide and not for bona fide purpose — notification challenged — delay — the ground of delay and acquiescence in the present case has no substance.

2007 SCCL.COM 104(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6587-6588 of 2000)
Sharadamma Appellant Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. Respondents, decided on 2/9/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Compensation — in view of the location of land being situated on National Highway of Bangalore-Madras, near Railway line and situated in Industrial Area, the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.20 per square yard as claimed by her.

2007 SCCL.COM 125(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6489-6490 of 2000)
Land Acquisition Officer, A. P. Appellant Vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr. Respondents, decided on 2/7/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compensation — enhancement — the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.22,000/- per acre as against Rs.6,000/- awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District — the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimants-respondents is adequate, just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or unwarranted.

2007 SCCL.COM 127(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 7059-7060 of 2000)
H.M.T. Ltd. rep. by its Deputy General Manager (HRM) and Anr Appellants Vs. Mudappa & Ors. Respondents, decided on 2/8/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – the acquisition was to the extent of 1 acre, 38 gunthas of land but the appellants took over possession of additional 39 gunthas of land; that in spite of request and prayer, possession of 39 gunthas of land was never restored to them; that they were required to file suit for possession; that a decree was passed in their favour which was confirmed by the appellate court which had become final; that even thereafter, execution proceedings were taken out wherein direction was issued to the appellants to hand over possession of the land to them, and at that stage, the notification under Section 28(1) was issued — validity of the notification under Section 28(1) and 3(1).

2007 SCCL.COM 190(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2007)
Ram Prasad Rai @ Ram Prasad Singh and Ors. Appellants Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. Respondents, decided on 2/23/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – challenged — in another writ petition, direction has been given for construction of the road on the land acquired which has been challenged — though the order appears to be innocuous, there are certain aspects which need to be highlighted. Obviously, the direction was for construction by the District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajippur or the Gram Panchayat. There was no indication that the same was to be governed by the decision in the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. — it would be appropriate to direct the High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition CWJC No. 3232 of 2004. The direction in the impugned order for construction would be operative after the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition depending upon the decision in the said writ petition.

2007 SCCL.COM 252(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1136 of 2007 (With Civil Appeal No.1137 of 2007))
Nelson Fernandes and Ors Appellants Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,South Goa & Ors Respondents, decided on 3/2/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Compensation — in case of Land Acquisition – claim rejected by Division Bench. — rate of compensation reduced — the High Court has adopted a rough and ready method for making deductions which is impermissible in law — Since the acquisition was made under Section 4(1) notification and the matter was pending from the year 1996 the appellant shall be entitled for payment of compensation now fixed by this Court together with solatium, interest and other statutory benefits as permissible under law and that the compensation and other payment shall be made within 3 months.

2007 SCCL.COM 288(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1321 of 2007)
Mohan and Anr. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents, decided on 3/13/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 11A — award — petition has prayed for quashing of the award published by special Land Acquisition officer in respect of Renapur Medium Project — whether the award was illegal in view of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act.

2007 SCCL.COM 292(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5928-5929 of 2004)
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Petitioner Vs. Keeravani Ammal and Ors. Respondents, decided on 3/15/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — Land acquired but not made use of — for 21 years — if not being used, it should be re-conveyed — High Court approached for the issue of mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu, its officers and Tamil Housing Board to re-convey the land — the writ petitioners, the contesting respondents, have not made out any case for interference by the Court or for grant of any relief to them.

2007 SCCL.COM 295(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1401 of 2007 (With Civil Appeal No. 1402 of 2007))
Numaligarh Refinery Ltd & anr. Appellants Vs. Green View Tea & Industries & Anr Respondents, decided on 3/15/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition – compensation awarded for the lands in question — challenged in the special leave petitions — special leave petition preferred against the judgment and order of the Assam High Court by Green View Tea Industries whose lands measuring about 681 bighas, with tea bushes were notified for acquisition — numaligarh Refinery Ltd. for whose benefit the acquisition has been made is directed against the award of compensation for the tea bushes Rs.75/- each — the compensation for tea bushes @ Rs.75/- each is excessive and ought to be reduced to Rs.37.50 for each tea bush — The Collector is directed to re-calculate the compensation payable to the claimant and pay the same together with such statutory benefits to which it may be entitled under the Act.

2007 SCCL.COM 349(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6099 of 2001 (With Civil Appeal No. 6100 & 6101 of 2001))
Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by L.Rs & anr. Appellants Vs. State of U. P. & Ors. Respondents, decided on 3/26/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — challenging the correctness and validity of the Award passed by the Collector — writ filed — appellants are owners/bhoomidars of the land — there is nothing to show that the respondents have wilfully flouted or intentionally violated the status quo order dated 10.07.2000 and 28.08.2001 passed by this Court. Therefore, it is not a fit case for initiating any proceedings for contempt against the respondents.

2007 SCCL.COM 370(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 2007 (With Civil Appeal No. 1705, 1706 & 1707 of 2007))
Ravi Khullar and another Appellants Vs. Union of India and others Respondent, decided on 3/30/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: A) Land Acquisition Act — section 11A — award made by the collector on 1st March 2003 barred by limitation — and as such the acquisition proceeding in relation thereto lapsed on February 18, 2003, which was the last date for making the award — so far as the acquisition of the lands belonging to Palam Potteries is concerned, the proceeding lapsed for failure of the Collector to make an award within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 11A of the act. B) Land Acquisition Act — section 4 — whether in view of the public purpose declared in the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, the lands can be utilized for any other public purpose.

2007 SCCL.COM 419(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 6663 of 2000)
Lok Sewa Shikshan Mandal Appellant Vs. A.R. Mundhada Charitable Trust & Ors Respondents, decided on 3/9/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act Section 11A — applicability of — Acquisition of Land of two survey Nos. — (i) Survey No. 186/4A admeasuring 59 acres of land for school; and (ii) Survey No.187/3A admeasuring 30 acres of land for garden — though the first respondent had challenged Land Acquisition proceedings for both Survey Nos., the High Court negatived all contentions as to acquisition of land admeasuring 59 acres of Survey No. 186/4A and the petition was dismissed. It was only for 30 acres of land of Survey No. 187/3A that the Court held that though the notification under Section 6 was published on July 2, 1986, no award was made within two years as required by Section 11A of the Act and the proceedings had lapsed — infirmity in the order of the High Court.

2007 SCCL.COM 440(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1953 of 2007)
D.G.M. (HR) P.G. Corporation of India Ltd. Appellant Vs. T. Venkat Reddy and Ors. Respondents, decided on 4/13/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — Land acquired for establishing sub-station — Respondents filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellant to consider their cases for appointment to a suitable post because they answered the description of displaced persons — The Division Bench held that no scheme exists in the appellant-Corporation to provide employment to the land oustees or their dependants and that much time had elapsed since the acquisition — If there is no scheme, the question of giving any employment would not arise. It is also clear from the order of the High Court that the respondents cannot be conferred with any benefit or exemption or relaxation.

2007 SCCL.COM 606(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2693 of 2007)
Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) By LRs. Petitioner Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer Respondent, decided on 5/17/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 54 — appeal is directed against judgment and order by DB of Andhra Pradesh High Court where under appeal preferred by respondent against judgment and order passed by principal Senior Civil Judge Warangal was allowed in part — basic facts are in dispute — whether Section 25 of the Act will have any application in the fact of the present case. Two notifications were issued separately. The second notification was issued as the first notification did not survive. Valuation of the market rate for the acquired land, thus, was required to be determined on the basis of the notification dated 23.12.1991. The earlier notification lost its force. If the notification issued on 16.03.1979 is taken into consideration for all purposes, the subsequent award awarding market value of the land @ Rs. 65/- per square yard cannot be sustained — the interest of justice would be met if this appeal is disposed of with a direction that additional interest @ 15% per annum on the amount awarded in terms of award dated 02.01.1999 for the period 16.03.1979 till 22.12.1991, should be granted.

2007 SCCL.COM 658(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2530 of 2007)
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran’ Appellant Vs. M/s Pure Industrial Cock & Chem. Ltd. and Ors. Respondents, decided on5/15/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 — Provisions — interpretation of.

2007 SCCL.COM 686(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 289 of 2006)
The Kerala State Electricity Board Appellant Vs. Livisha etc. etc. Respondent, decided on 5/18/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 — Section 10 Part III — what would be the amount of compensation for the trees cut and removed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, a body corporate, constituted and incorporated under Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is the question involved in these appeals. Indisputably, amount of compensation for the said purpose is determined in terms of the provisions of Section 10, Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 — trees have been cut and removed for drawal of 110 K.V. Electric Line. The Board/Land Acquisition Officer determined the amount of compensation whereupon reference was made — the situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors would be determinative — the High Court should consider the matter afresh on the merit of each matter having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein.

2007 SCCL.COM 746 (Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2558-2559 of 2004)
Ram Krishan Mahajan Appellant Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others Respondents, decided on 7/3/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 4 — acquisition proceedings by issuance of notification challenged — Municipal Act, 1911 — Sections 3, 52, 53, 58 and 192 — it was urged before the High Court that without framing building scheme under Section 192 of the Act of 1911, the acquisition of the land for residential-cum-commercial complex (Scheme No.2 of the Notified Area Committee) could not be said to be for a public purpose and was contrary to law — argued before the High Court that the municipal fund could be utilized only for the purposes contemplated by Section 52 of the Municipal Act of 1911. Since the Scheme was not a “building scheme” under Section 192 of the Act of 1911, the Mani Majra Notified Area could not be burdened with the cost of acquisition of land — whether the acquisition is for a “building scheme” as contemplated under Section 192 of the Act of 1911, or whether it is only a development plan for providing better facilities to the inhabitants of the area by way of residential, commercial and medical facilities which are within the contemplation of Section 52(2)(c) of the Act of 1911.

2007 SCCL.COM 747(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5721-5725 of 2001)
State of Punjab and others Appellant Vs. Sanjeet Singh Grewal and others Respondents, decided on 7/3/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 — notifications issued for acquisition of 9354 acres of land in 29 villages of the District Ropar — several writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the Notifications alleging that the Notifications had been issued in derogation of the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 — the provisions of Sections 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the Act of 1995 were completely ignored. Though the New Town Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh was constituted by the Government on May 20, 1999 under Section 31 of the Act of 1995, in the absence of a decision of the Board under Sections 56 and 57 of the Act of 1995, the aforesaid Special Town Planning Authority for Anandgarh could not take up the planning and development of the new township — it may be that the State Government in its anxiety to set up the new town of Anandgarh acted with haste and in the process lost sight of some of the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1995. That however, does not justify the conclusion that the State had acted mala fide. The material on record does not justify even the observations made by the High Court.

2007 SCCL.COM 860(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5355 of 2006)
Gafar & Ors. Appellant Vs. Moradabad Development Authority & Another Respondents, decided on 8/17/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Land Acquisition compensation payable to the land owners — determinator of — The Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award determined the compensation at Rs. 80 per square meter. This was enhanced to Rs. 270 per square meter on references made under Section 18 of the Act. On appeals, the High Court set aside the enhancement given by the Reference Court and restored the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the land owners have come up with most of these appeals — Normally, in an appeal against the award of compensation by the High Court, this Court interferes only if there has been a misapplication of any principle of assessing compensation — us regarding the lands in Sonakpur, Court is not satisfied that any error in principle has been committed by the High Court justifying our interference — assessment of compensation for lands acquired involves an amount of guess work, no doubt, based on the evidence available regarding comparable sale of lands in the locality and so on — the Awarding Officer has been generous in his award of compensation in all these cases — no interference is called for with the decisions of the High Court in these cases.

2007 SCCL.COM 892(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3262-3270 of 2002 with {C.A. No. 3271/2002, C.A. No. 3279/2002, C.A. Nos. 3272-3278/2002, C.A. No. 1512/2004, C.A. No. 1513/2004, C.A. No. 5527/2005, C.A. No. 5833/2005, C.A. No. 3923/2007 [SLP (C) No. 8161/2007], C.A. No. 3924/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9355/2007], C.A. No. 3929/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9283/2007C.A. No. 3925/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9362/2007], C.A. No. 3926/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9364/2007], C.A. No. 3927/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9281/2007]and C.A. No. 3928/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9357/2007]})
Raj Kumar & Others Appellant Vs. Haryana State & Others Respondents, decided on 8/27/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Case — special leave to appeal — delay condoned — a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19.5.1992 notifying the proposal for acquisition of an extent of 504.27 acres of land in the revenue estates of Hisar, Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas in District Hisar. The public purpose put forward was the development and utilization of land as residential in Sectors 9 and 11 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. On 18.5.1993, a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. The area in respect of which the declaration was made was of 478.44 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 17.5.1995 adjudging the compensation payable to the land owners at Rs.3 lakhs per acre. On a claim for enhancement by various claimants, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.235/- per square yard for the lands in the revenue estate of Hisar and to Rs.135/- per square yard in the revenue estates of Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas. The Reference Court found that the lands were agricultural lands and were being used for agricultural purposes. But still it found that the acquired lands were within the municipal limits of the town and it took note of the potentialities of the lands with reference to its location — the State as well as the claimants appealed against this award. According to the State, the lands being agricultural lands, the enhancement awarded was exorbitant and the rate per square yard accepted was too high — the Division Bench found that the learned single judge was fully justified in awarding land value for the lands in Hisar at Rs. 235/- per square yard and in awarding land value of Rs. 175/- per square yard for the lands in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas — it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in discarding those auction sales while determining the compensation payable. The element of competition in auction sales makes them not safeguides.

2007 SCCL.COM 896(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003 and 3922 of 2007)
M/s Girnar Traders and M/s. S.P. Building Corporation & Another Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others Respondents, decided on8/27/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act — section 127 — interpretation and applicability of. B.N. Agrawal and P.P. Naolekar, J.:— the appellants are entitled to the relief claimed, and the other question argued on the applicability of the newly inserted Section 11A of the LA Act to the acquisition of land made under the MRTP Act need not require to be considered — the impugned judgment and order dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is set aside and this appeal is allowed. As no steps have been taken by the Municipal Corporation for acquisition of the land within the time period, there is deemed de-reservation of the land in question and the appellants are permitted to utilise the land as permissible under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.:— the MRTP Act serves a great social purpose and the approach of the court to an interpretation must be to see to it that the social purpose is not defeated as far as possible. Therefore, a purposive interpretation of Section 127 of the Act so as to achieve the object of the MRTP Act is called for — appeals referred to larger Bench. Papers to be placed before CJ.

2007 SCCL.COM 1077(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4843 of 2007 with CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4844 OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10182 of 2006])
Devinder Singh and Others Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & Others Respondent, decided on 10/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: A) Jurisdictional error — subject to judicial review — the approach of the High Court in this behalf, is totally erroneous. A provision of a statute is either mandatory or directory. Even if a provision is directory, the same should be substantially complied with. It cannot be ignored in its entirety only because the provision is held to be directory and not an imperative one — in this case admittedly there has been no compliance of Rule 4. If Rule 4 has not been complied with, the exercise of jurisdiction under Part VII must be held to have been erroneous. B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4 — notification under — for acquisition of appellants land for Ganesh Project — a declaration is to be made either for a public purpose or for a company. It cannot be for both — when the properties of a citizen is being compulsorily acquired by a State in exercise of its power of Eminent Domain, the essential ingredients thereof, namely, existence of a public purpose and payment of compensation are principal requisites therefor. In the case of acquisition of land for a private company, existence of a public purpose being not a requisite criteria, other statutory requirements call for strict compliance, being imperative in character — the lands in question are recorded as Shahi lands. It is not in dispute that they are agricultural lands. The Act contemplates that such lands may not be acquired.

2007 SCCL.COM 1088(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4809-4810 of 2007)
G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project Appellant Vs. Jai Prakash Srivastava & Another Respondent, decided on 10/11/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition cases — daily wagers appointed for the purpose — services terminated — industrial dispute raised — lands are acquired in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is for the authorities concerned to conduct the cases relating to acquisition of land in the courts of law. Although the appellant was providing for the funds for meeting the expenditure in relation to payment of wages etc. to the first respondent herein, evidently, the relationship between an employer and employee did not come into being between the appellant and the first respondent. It did not require the services of the appellant. The Special Land Acquisition Officer did. The offer of appointment was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. First respondent was working under his supervision and control. His services were being taken by the SpecialLand Acquisition Officer for a particular purpose, namely, looking after the Land Acquisition cases. When the purpose for which the first respondent was appointed ceased to exist, his services were terminated. If there did not exist any relationship of employer and employee, the question of the appellant’s fulfilling the obligations required in terms of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, namely, payment of retrenchment compensation or one months pay in lieu of notice did not and could not arise — the services of the first respondent were necessary for looking after the Land Acquisition cases of the petitioner. Even in a case where the workman is appointed on contractual basis, the industrial court would ordinarily not direct for reinstatement. Subject to statutory interdict, the agreement between the parties in this behalf must be given due weight — the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

2007 SCCL.COM 1138(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4886 of 2007)
Shridevi & Another Appellants Vs. Muralidhar & Another Respondents, decided on 10/12/2007.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — land not acquired — whether Site No. 432 was the subject matter of any Land Acquisition proceeding or not. Prima facie, it does not appear that the said plot was acquired. Had entire Survey No. 15/1 been the subject matter of Land Acquisitionproceeding, the portion of the land belonging to the plaintiff- respondent would have also been acquired. Their names also would have found place in the notification. Possession would have been taken from them and an award would have been made in their favour. The very fact that the northern boundary of the land sought to be acquired has been shown as Survey No. 15/1, prima facie, it appears that the entire Survey No. 15/1 had not been the subject matter of acquisition — in that view of the matter the High Court was right in opining that an arguable case has been made out. While considering an application for injunction, existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience of parties, irreparable injury were required to be considered by the Civil Court. Grant of a relief in regard to the nature and extent thereof will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case — this Court, however, is not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily a court of appeal does not interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the learned Trial Judge. However, in this case the learned Trial Judge while passing the order dated 16.08.2006 failed to consider the relevant question, viz., as to whether the Authority had acquired Site No. 432 or not. That was the principal question on the basis whereof the learned Trial Judge ought to have proceeded with the matter — furthermore, no construction could be raised in view of the order of a Division bench of this Court dated 21.06.2007. In that view of the matter, interest of justice would be subserved if the said order is made absolute.

2007 SCCL.COM 1148(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5112 of 2007)
Lucknow Development Authority Petitioner Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others Respondent, decided on 11/2/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasyat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 54 read with section 96 of CPC — appeal — dismissal challenged — keeping in view the general principles and the factual scenario as evident from the materials brought on record, court sustains the market value fixed (i.e. Rs.8/- sq.ft.) but instead of 25% development charges one-third has to be deducted. The entitlements shall be worked out on that basis.

2007 SCCL.COM 1254(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3148-3157 of 2000)
Atma Singh (died) through LRs. & others Appellants Vs. State of Haryana & another Respondents, decided on 12/7/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — Land Acquisition Act — section 4 — compensation — enhancement sought — a deduction of 10% from the market value of the land, which has been arrived at by the High Court would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the market value of the acquired land for the purpose of payment of compensation to the land owners has to be assessed at Rs.1,08,000/- per acre — the appeals are partly allowed. The claimant-appellants will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,08,000/- per acre. Besides the above amount, they will also be entitled to the statutory sum in accordance with Section 23(1-A) and solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value of the land in accordance with Section 23(2) of the Act. They will also be entitled to interest as provided in Section 28 of the Act. The appellants will be entitled to their costs.

2007 SCCL.COM 1272(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5793 of 2007)
Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi Sudhar Samiti (Regd.) Appellant Vs. The Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi and others Respondents, decided on 12/11/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — land acquired — award passed — appellant society managing the affairs of the cremation ground —  the present controversy relates to a cremation ground known as ‘Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi’. It is located in a village known as Shakur Basti in the town of Delhi — despite acquisition of the said land unauthorized cremation of dead bodies continued — as a statutory authority, the Lt. Governor could not ignore the development plan. As the earlier order passed by a statutory authority was a nullity, an order recalling the same shall not be allowed to operate only because certain formalities (assuming there were some) in passing the same have not been complied with — a writ court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not quash an order if it gives rise to another illegal order or may quash both the orders — no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment.

2007 SCCL.COM 1360(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2108-2194 of 2003 with C.A. Nos.2266/2003, 2269-2282/2003, 2099-2107/2003, 2283-2294/2003, 2195-2254/2003, 2267/2003, 2268/2003, 2255-2265/2003, 9511-9512/2003, 9513-9514/2003, 9515-9516/2003, 9517-9518/2003, 9519-9520/2003, 9521-9522/2003, C.A. Nos.5609-5610/2007 (@ S.L.P.(C) Nos.711-712/2004), C.A. Nos.5611-5612/2007 (@ S.L.P.(C) 713-714/2004), C.A. Nos.5613-5614/2007 (@ S.L.P.(C) 731-732/2004, C.A. Nos.5615-5616/2007 (@ S.L.P.(C) 735-736/2004) and C.A. Nos.5617-5618 of 2007 (@ S.L.P.(C) No.740-741/2004).)
Union of India & another Appellants Vs. Ranchod & others Respondents, decided on 12/4/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4(1) and 6(1) — notification — compensation — total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC — no option but to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeals. B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — notification — compensation — in the review petition the High Court took the view that the case did not fall within the purview of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly dismissed the same by a short order of eight lines — the appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2000 and also the order passed in the review petition dated 22.3.2002 are set aside and the appeals are remitted to the High Court for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs.

2008 SCCL.COM 286(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (civil) 44 of 2005)
Bihar Finance Service H.C. Coop. Soc. Ltd Appellant Vs. Gautam Goswami & others Respondents, decided on 3/5/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — contempt proceeding — while exercising the said jurisdiction this court does not intend to reopen the issues which could have been raised in the original proceeding nor shall it embark upon other questions including the plea of equities which could fall for consideration only in the original proceedings. The court is not concerned with as to whether the original order was right or wrong. The court must not take a different view or traverse beyond the same. It cannot ordinarily give an additional direction or delete a direction issued. In short, it will not do anything which would amount to exercise of its review jurisdiction — this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act or Article 129 of the Constitution of India must strive to give effect to the directions issued by this Court. When the claim of the parties had been adjudicated upon and has attained finality, it is not open for any party to go behind the said orders and seek to take away and/ or truncate the effect thereof — an appropriate application may be filed before the Patna High Court. The High Court alone would be entitled to rectify the mistake committed by it, if any. Either the State of Bihar or the applicants who are the beneficiaries of this order may file an appropriate application therefor. If and when such an application is filed, the High Court, we are sure, would pass an appropriate order in terms of the well known principle actus curiae neminem gravabit — the functions of the PRDA are now being carried out by Patna Municipal Corporation. The statutory authority, thus, keeping in view the purport and object for which it has been created, must take appropriate action in accordance with law. As indicated hereinbefore, PRDA, the predecessor of Patna Municipal Corporation has given assurance before this Court. This Court hopes it shall implement the same as expeditiously as possible.

2008 SCCL.COM 303 (Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2008)
M. Balakrishna Reddy Appellant Vs. Director, CBI, New Delhi Respondent, decided on 3/14/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 420, 471, 474, 467, 468 and 417 read with section 511 — charge-sheet filed — appellant appeared in the examination conducted by UPSC — the appellant was found to be in possession of prewritten answer sheets which were similar — a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Magistrate, Central Bureau of Investigation, Indore — the appellant raised a preliminary objection contending that the alleged offences had been committed at Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh and CBI had no power, authority or jurisdiction to institute criminal proceedings. It was also contended that before initiating proceedings under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, consent of the State Government is required. No such consent had been given by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the proceedings initiated against the appellant by CBI were without jurisdiction — Bachhittar Singh has no application to the facts of the present case. As is clear, in Bachhittar Singh, there was merely a ‘noting’ made by the Minister on the file. This Court held that merely writing something on file does not amount to an ‘order’. No formal order reducing the punishment was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up by the State Government, it could not take the character of Order since the Minister could change his mind and delete the remarks. Moreover, the decision must also be communicated to the person concerned which was absent in the case — in the present case, the decision produced by the respondent along with the counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bhopal clearly sets out all the particulars required by Section 6 of the Delhi Act. It refers to the file/reference number, name of the department, the authority from whom it was issued and communicated to the concerned department of the Central Government. It, therefore, cannot be said that the State Government had not granted consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Act — it, therefore, depends on the facts of each case whether the consent required by Section 6 of the Delhi Act has or has not been given by the State Government and no rule of universal application can be laid down — there is no doubt that the State of Madhya Pradesh has given consent as envisaged by Section 6 of the Delhi Act and prosecution instituted by CBI against the appellant cannot be said to be without jurisdiction — no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. The appeal, hence, deserves to be dismissed.

2008 SCCL.COM 403(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5782 of 2002 (With C.A.Nos. 5670, 5778, 5779, 5804, 6566/2002))
Karnal Improvement Trust Appellant Vs. Sumitra Devi (dead) by Lrs. And others Respondents, decided on 3/24/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 23(1-A) and 28 — challenge in the Writ Petitions was to the award of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and other amounts permissible — challenge in each case is to the final judgment and order dated 29.1.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Writ Petitions filed by the appellant in each case were dismissed — according to the appellant the benefits were not available to the respondents because of the specific provisions of Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition(Amendment) Act, 1984 — since there was no enhancement of compensation in excess of the award of the Collector, the benefits under Section 28 of the Act are also not applicable — there was no enhancement of the rates as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector. That being so, benefits under Section 28 of the Act are not available to the respondents. The award was passed on 7.11.1972. The Reference Court decided the case on 18.10.1997. That will not change the position because as noted in Filip Tiago’s case (supra) the relevant date is the date of award by the Collector under the Act. The High Court, therefore, is clearly wrong in dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The inevitable conclusion is that respondents are not entitled to solatium under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and similarly the benefits under Section 28 of the Act.

2008 SCCL.COM 435(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1363 of 2007 with (Civil Appeal No. 2468/2008 @ SLP (C) NO. 15653 OF 2004 (Civil Appeal No. 2469/2008 @ SLP (C) NO. 15657 OF 2004 )
Lilawati Agarwal (dead) by Lrs.& others Appellants Vs. State of Jharkhand Respondent, decided on 4/4/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 28 — sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and section 28 — entitlement of the claimants/appellants of the benefits.

2008 SCCL.COM 581(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3638 of 2008)
Illa Roy Chowdhury Appellant Vs. Shyamali Das and others Respondents, decided on 5/16/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 30 and 31 — an application for reference under — an attempt on the part of the First Respondent to get herself impleaded as party in the Reference Petition did not fructify. The said order attained finality. It does not appear that the said respondent was not sure as to whether such an application had been filed or not — what would be the effect of the order of the Calcutta High Court allowing the First Respondent to file an appropriate application before the Collector for reference in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act which was a conditional order — no fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the matter to proceed pursuant to the observations made by the learned Single Judge.

2008 SCCL.COM 716(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.3505 of 2008)
M/s.Sheikhar Hotels Gulmohar Enclave & another Appellants Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others Respondents, decided on 5/12/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — sections 4(1) and 17(1) — notification under — affirmed by High Court — appeal — a preliminary objection was raised before the High Court on behalf of the respondent- Bulandshahr-Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshahr that the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the appellants and secondly it was contended that the writ petition was bereft of basic pleadings with regard to the challenge of dispensing with Section 5-A of the Act — the High Court found that there was no infirmity in the impugned notifications — acquisition was made under the Master Plan prepared under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act and the same got approval of the National Capital Region Planning Board and loan was sanctioned by the Board and out of which Rs.17.42 crores have already been spent — invocation of Section 17(4) read with Section 5-A of the Act was well warranted and we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

2008 SCCL.COM 726(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.7201 of 2005 (With Civil Appeal Nos. 7202, 7203, 7204, 7205 and 7206/2005))
C.E.S.C. Limited Appellant Vs. Sandhya Rani Barik and others Respondents, decided on 7/7/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 — acquisition under — these appeals have been filed by CESC Ltd. questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court disposing of three appeals filed by the present appellant challenging common judgment and order of learned Land Acquisition Judge by which he disposed of three references from the award of the Collector — the armchair assessment of land value has to proceed with common sense and circumspection. One should attempt to find out the just and reasonable compensation without attempting any mathematical precision in that regard. For the purpose of assessing compensation, the efforts should be to find out the price fixed for the similarly land in the vicinity.

2008 SCCL.COM 824(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1330-1332 of 2003 With CIVIL APPEAL No. 4235 of 2008@ SLP(C) No.9486 of 2003 CIVIL APPEAL No.4236 of 2008@SLP(C) No.9380 of 2003 CIVIL APPEAL No.4240 of 2008@SLP(C) No.18028 of 2001 CIVIL APPEAL No.4241 of 2008@SLP(C) No.3914 of 2002 CIVIL APPEAL No.4243 of 2008@SLP(C) No.18029 of 2001 CIVIL APPEAL No.4242 of 2008@SLP(C) No.3793 of 2001 CIVIL APPEAL No.4244 of 2008@SLP(C) No.15919 of 2001 CIVIL APPEAL No.4245 of 2008@SLP(C) No.15925 of 2001 CIVIL APPEAL No.4246 of 2008@SLP(C) No.15926 of 2001CIVIL APPEAL No.4247 of 2008@SLP(C) No.15922 of 2001CIVIL APPEAL No.4248 of 2008@SLP(C) No.15921 of 2001CIVIL APPEAL No.4249 of 2008@SLP(C) No.15923 of 2001CIVIL APPEAL No.4250 of 2008@SLP(C) No.16136 of 2001CIVIL APPEAL No.4251 of 2008@SLP(C) No.16137 of 2001CIVIL APPEAL No.4252 of 2008@SLP(C) No.18032 of 2001CIVIL APPEAL No.4237 of 2008@SLP(C) No.9488 of 2003CIVIL APPEAL No.4238 of 2008@SLP(C) No.9499 of 2003 AND CIVIL APPEAL No.4239 of 2008@SLP(C) No.9531 of 2003)
Kanta Devi and others Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another Respondents, decided on 7/8/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition award — these appeals, have their genesis in a common award dated 14th March, 1989, made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Kurukshetra, whereby he awarded compensation in respect of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre for land in the form of Chahi, Gair Mumkin Tubewell, etc. and at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre in respect of Gair Mumkin Talab Land and Rasta Land — twenty seven References were made to the Land Acquisition Judge, Kurukshetra, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same were disposed of by an Award dated 2nd January, 1993 — the claimants filed Regular First Appeals before the High Court. Similarly, being aggrieved by the enhancement of the market value of the lands, the State also preferred 27 Regular First Appeals. In all, 51 Regular First Appeals, arising from the common Notification, Award, and Judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge, were taken up for hearing together and were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by a common Judgment dated 10th August, 1999 — the Division Bench of the High Court while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the claimants could have given proper reasons before dismissing the same in limine — the appeals are accordingly allowed in part only to the extent that the deduction of 70% applied by the learned Single Judge and endorsed by the High Court is reduced to 60%.

2008 SCCL.COM 884(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3413-3414 of 2001 With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4382_83 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.11233-11234 of 2001) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6493 OF 2002 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6494 OF 2002 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6496 OF 2002)
Meera Sahni Appellant Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others Respondents, decided on 7/15/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Delhi Lands (Restrictions and Transfer) Act, 1972 read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — whether in view of the provisions of Delhi Lands (Restrictions and Transfer) Act, 1972 read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 transfer of land made by the original owner by registering a sale deed on the basis of which mutation was also granted would and could be accepted as legal and valid transfer despite the fact that such land was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose.

2008 SCCL.COM 897(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4365 of 2008)
Jeewan Dhar Jain (Dead) through Lrs. and others Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others Respondents, decided on 7/14/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Review applications — Land Acquisition — payment to the land owners — the claimants were not entitled to appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector at their discretion and appropriation and payment shall be made strictly in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Prem Nath Kapoor’s case — the impugned order be set aside and the matters may be remitted back to the High Court for decision in the light of the observations of this Court made in the Constitution Bench decision — the impugned orders of the High Court rejecting the review petitions are set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above — this court has not gone into the arguments advanced by the parties on the question whether the Constitution Bench decision would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and it is kept to be taken into consideration by the High Court in the manner indicated

2008 SCCL.COM 975(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4728 of 2008)
Mahadevappa Lachappa Kinagi and others Appellants Vs. State of Karnataka and others Respondents, decided on 7/30/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — section 17 — the power under — validity invoked — appeal — Section 17 of the Act confers extraordinary powers on the authorities under which it can dispense with the Normal procedure laid down under Section 5-A of the Act in cases of exceptional urgency. It is also true that such powers cannot be lightly resorted to except in case of real urgency enabling the Government to take immediate possession of the land proposed to be acquired for public purpose.

2008 SCCL.COM 1003(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4926 of 2008)
T.R. Boopalan and others Appellants Vs. Tamil Nadu State Housing Board and others Respondents, decided on 8/7/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markanedy Katju.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act 1894 — section 4(1) — notification under — in 1991, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.16207 of 1991 challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey No.188/4 measuring 0.81 acres. According to the appellants, the said writ petition was allowed and the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the L.A. Act in respect of Survey No.188/4 was quashed — thereafter it was discovered by the appellants that through inadvertence the measurement of the land had been shown in the writ petition as 0.81 cents instead of 0.81 acres and an application was thereupon made before the High Court to correct the mistake and to amend the relief in respect of 0.81 cents to 0.81 acres since there was no dispute regarding the same and the correct figure had been mentioned both by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the State of Tamil Nadu — the appellants were entitled to apply for “No Objection Certificate” in respect of same but the Respondent No.1, for reasons best known to it, chose to confine itself only to the area of land mentioned in the Writ Petition, which was clearly an unintended error — unable to sustain the decision of the Division Bench

2008 SCCL.COM 1034(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4982 of 2008)
Abdul Gafur and another Appellant (s) Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others Respondent (s), decided on 8/11/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4 and 6 — Gazette notifications under — the relief in the suits is confined to the right of the appellants to use the public road laid on the acquired land. On merit, it was strenuously urged that being a public street, neither the State nor any one claiming under it could cause any obstruction or hindrance in its user by enclosing it with the walls — it is, thus, pleaded that the Hospital should be directed to demolish the wall and restore status quo ante — the impugned order, dated 29th March, 2007, is set aside and the two suits and the appeal, dismissed in terms of the said order, are restored to the file of the High Court for fresh adjudication and disposal in accordance with law.

2008 SCCL.COM 1083(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5192 of 2002 (With Civil Appeal Nos.5193,5194,5195,5196,5197 and 5198 of 2002))
G.M., Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Appellant Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another Respondents, decided on 7/31/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raeendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — compensation — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — 4(1) — these appeals by special leave are by the beneficiary of acquisition (ONGC), aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents — the claimants/respondents will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.13/- per sq. m. with additional amount under section 23(1A) and solatium under section 23(2) as awarded. The respondents-claimants will be entitled to interest at the rates awarded by the reference court (9% per annum for one year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter) on the total compensation amount including additional amount under section 23 (1A) and solatium under section 23(2). Parties to bear their respective costs.

2008 SCCL.COM 1153(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2461-2465, 2466, 2467, 2468, 2469, 2470 of 2000)
State of Haryana with Lt. Col. Dharam Pal Singh with Smt. Harmesh with Gurabax Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and anr with Sucha Singh with Pratap Appellants Vs. Gurbax Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and another with State of Haryana Respondents, decided on 5/8/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition compensation — since this Court accepted the first part of the judgment of the Division Bench marginally enhancing the market price to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, that portion will remain untouched in the sense that if so considered appropriate in law, there may be only upward revision in the market price — matter remanded to the Division Bench for fresh consideration.

2008 SCCL.COM 1168(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5509, 5510, 5511, 5512, 5513, 5514, 5515 of 2008)
Sooraram Pratap Reddy and others with Suraram Krishna Reddy and another with V. Krishna Prasad with A.L. Sadanand with Malla Reddy and Ors. Appellants Vs. Distt. Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist. and ors with Distt. Collector, Land Acquisition and ors Govt. of A.P. with District Collector and ors Respondents, decided on 9/5/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — proceedings under — quashing of — appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in various Letters Patent Appeals as also in Writ Petitions. By the said orders, the High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants for quashing proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act — for acquisition of land being illegal, unlawful, mala fide and in colourable exercise of power by the State — a notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the State Government Gazette on July 17, 2002. The said action was challenged and the validity of notification was questioned in a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court dismissed the petition following an earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 21712 of 2002 by observing that the writ petition involved similar issues. The High Court, however, directed that `urgency clause’ sought to be invoked by the Government under Section 17 of the Act was illegal, unlawful and unwarranted — the action of the State in initiating acquisition proceedings for establishing and developing infrastructure project cannot be held contrary to law or objectionable. The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing writ petitions as also writ appeals and this Court finds no infirmity therein. All the appeals, therefore, are liable to be dismissed

2008 SCCL.COM 1193(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5725-5726 of 2008)
Food Corporation of India, Kakinade Rep. by District Manager Appellant Vs. Yarlagadda Narayana Apparao and others Respondents,decided on 9/17/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 23 (2) — liability to interest on the amount envisaged under section 23 (2) — basic dispute relates to liability to interest on the amount envisaged under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 conveniently called “solatium”.

2008 SCCL.COM 1230(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5640 of 2008)
The Collector, Land Acquisition and another Appellants Vs. Jaswant Singh and others Respondents, decided on 9/15/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Interest on the amount of solatium — payment of — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 18 — a Revision Petition, in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 was filed before the High Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court — the High Court has to examine the position in the light of the decision in Gurpreet Singh’s case as the said decision is subsequent to the judgment of the High Court. Since the factual position has not been noted by the High Court in matter remitted to the High Court — to consider the matter in the light of what has been stated in paragraph-54 of Gurpreet’s case.

2008 SCCL.COM 1368(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6414 of 2008)
Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Appellants Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and another Respondents, decided on 11/3/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Limitation Act, 1963 — section 5 — applications under — for condoning the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals against the award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in Land Acquisition cases. The High Court accepted the explanation offered by the respondent no. 1 herein for the apparent inordinate delay in filing the appeals against the award of the Reference Court — the lands belonging to the appellants were acquired at the instance of the respondent for a public purpose under the draft Notification published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 06.03.1997. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project (Hatnur), Jalgaon passed the award dated 31.3.1999. The appellant sought for reference of the said award under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation — settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest — the High Court gravely erred and exercised its discretion to condone the inordinate delay of 1724 days though no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants.

2008 SCCL.COM 1465(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6580, 6581 of 2008 with Contempt Petition No. 30 of 2007 in Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2007)
ESSCO FABS Pvt. Ltd. and another with The Panipat Teachers (Recognised Schools) Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. and another Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another Respondents, decided on 11/7/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Land Acquistion Act, 1894 — sections 4 and 6 — acquisition proceedings — challenged — land acquired by the applicant — theLand Acquisition proceedings could not be completed within the stipulated period and the notifications lapsed and the land stood released — it is the case of the appellant that the preliminary notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was required to be published in the manner laid down in the Act. But it had not been published before issuance of final notification under Section 6 of the Act — the other appeal is filed by the Panipat Teachers (Recognized Schools) Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. challenging the acquisition proceedings — initial action of acquisition of land was taken as early as in 1982 but the proceedings lapsed. In 1991, when Essco made an application praying for change of user of land, it was rejected on the ground that the land was likely to be required for public purpose. Nothing, however, was done for about a decade. It is only in 2001 that again Notification under Section 4 was issued and urgency clause was applied — the ratio lad down in Mukesh Hans squarely applies to the facts of the case. No urgency clause could have been invoked by the respondents and inquiry and hearing of objections provided by Section 5A of the Act could not have been dispensed with. The actions of issuance of urgency clause under sub-section (4) of Section 17, dispensing with inquiry under Section 5A and issuance of final notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6 are required to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed.

2008 SCCL.COM 1483(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6442 of 2000)
Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand Shah Appellant Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Respondent, decided on 11/7/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Letters Patent Appeal — disposal by cryptic order — the order challenged in this appeal — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4 — notification under — issued for acquisition of land bearing Khata Nos. 277 and 107 situated in the town of Lohardaga of Ranchi for construction of agricultural market-yard. According to the appellant, the Collector divided the land into two categories; (i) category `ka’ and (ii) category `kha’. The land situated up to 150 feet from the road was categorized as `ka’ whereas land situated beyond 150 feet from the road was categorized as `kha’. The Collector assessed the value of the land of category `ka’ at the rate of Rs.48,500/- per acre and category `kha’ at the rate of Rs.32,335/- per acre. It was, however, the allegation of the appellant that the Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar illegally and without any reason or ground and without authority of law reduced the rate to Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 16,000/- per acre for category `ka’ and `kha’ respectively — an award was passed on May 05, 1980 on that basis — the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal cannot be said to be in accordance with law and the said order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench is set aside — as and when the matter will be placed for hearing before the Division Bench, the same will be decided strictly on its own merits.

2008 SCCL.COM 1566(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6850-6851 of 2003 with Civil Appeal Nos. 6852-6853, 6854-6855, 6856-6857, 6858-6859, 6860, 6861 and 6862 of 2003)
Kendriya Karamchari S.G.N. Samiti Ltd. with Vijay Singh with Charan Singh with Ajay Singh with Ran Singh Appellants Vs. State of U.P. and another Respondents, decided on 11/7/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 18, 28(A), 11 — award of compensation for acquisition of land for public purpose — Reference Court enhanced compensation amount to some land-owners on referral of sec. 18 — appellants not covered as they made no reference — sought relief under sec. 28(A) — High Court dismissed appeal saying sec. 28(A) is for

2008 SCCL.COM 1569(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3635, 3711 and 4177 of 2007)
Mummidi Apparao (D) Through LRs. with Mummidi Tulsamma with Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Petitioner(s) Vs. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. and another with Mummidi Veeraraghavamma and others etc. Respondent(s), decided on 11/21/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition proceedings — rate of compensation — this batch of three special leave petitions arises from Land Acquisitionproceedings and the matter in dispute is the rate of compensation for the acquired lands as determined by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. SLP (Civil) Nos. 3635 and 3711 of 2007 were filed on behalf of claimants/landholders and SLP (Civil) No. 4177 of 2007 at the instance of Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. for whose benefit the lands were taken in acquisition — the Civil Judge came to hold and find that the acquired lands had the potential to develop into housing sites and accordingly took ext.B.2 as the basis for fixing the rate of compensation. The High Court having regard to the present state of the lands enhanced the ratio of deduction to half of the market value as worked out on the basis of ext. B2 — compensation awarded by the High Court to the claimants/landholders is correct, just and proper and warrants no interference.

2008 SCCL.COM 1593(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7801 of 2002)
Prakash R. Gupta Appellant(s) Vs. Lonavala Municipal Council and others Respondent(s), decided on 12/2/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, sections 37, 127 and 49 — Land dispute within a development plan — land allocated to a college — college got disaffiliated — with minor modification in the Act, the land was then allotted to the respondent no.-3 — High Court took section 49 of the Act into consideration — saw no lapse of the reservation — appealed — Supreme Court took note of section 127, wherein an upper limit of 10 years was prescribed for Land Acquisition — High Court’s reference to section 49 was “totally misconceived and uncalled for” — appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside — directed that land in question be released in favour of appellant.

2008 SCCL.COM 1653(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7083 of 2008)
Mootha Venkateswara Rao (Dead) Tr. Lrs. Appellants Vs. Godhavari Co-op Milk P. Union Ltd. and others Respondents, decided on12/3/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act 1894 — section 4(1) — Notification under — market value of lands as prevailing on the date was to be taken for determination of compensation — appellant challenged the acquisition by a writ petition — dismissed — appeal was allowed by High Court — compromise after SLP in Supreme Court, which laid down norms for fixing market value — matter back in Reference Court — appellants not happy with market value fixed — appealed — High Court held despite the fact that payment had not been made in terms of Memorandum of Settlement, since the main appeal was being heard, the entire acquisition as such could not be washed away, which would be detrimental to both the parties — appeal dismissed — appealed — question — whether High Court had erred is not setting aside the acquisition proceedings in terms of the compromise reached previously — Held : acquisition proceedings does not stand set aside on account of default on the part of respondents in making deposit within 8 weeks — Held : High Court had acted within jurisdiction in extending the time — appeal dismissed — claimants to compensation can withdraw the deposits.

2008 SCCL.COM 1659(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1585 of 2001)
Shiv Ram Appellant Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents, decided on 12/18/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjeet Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sec. 4 — State Government acquired land on the basis of Award granting a sum of Rs.43,330/- per bigha — Reference before District Judge by the claimant rejected, though increase to Rs.70,000/- per bigha ordered — first appeal in High Court — compensation awarded by District Judge confirmed — appeal by claimant — held : observation, of Division Bench with regard to the quality and the situation of the land acquired in the year 1980 and the present acquisition (in 1988) are not quite accurate — land subject to two acquisitions in 1980 and 1988 were of the same quality — Division Bench view rejected — appeal allowed and a compensation at the rate of Rs.1.30 lakh per bigha awarded to appellant — solatium and interest on enhanced amount also granted.

2008 SCCL.COM 1686(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7287 of 2008)
Dharam Pal Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others Respondents, decided on 12/15/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4, 6 — Issue — construction made by the appellant has been acquired whereas similar kind of constructions made with regard to other similarly — situated persons left out — plea dismissed by High Court — appealed — respondent directed to consider objections of the appellant only so far as it relates to exclusion of the land to the extent occupied by the structure and open area around it — this direction not to come in the way of authorities in removing the structures, if required for purposes of road, hospital and other civic amenities — directions on peculiar facts of these cases only — not for any general application — High Court judgment set aside — appeal disposed of.

2008 SCCL.COM 1695(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7405 of 2008)
Shri Najmuddin and others Appellants Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 12/18/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 — Administration of Evacuee Property Act — Constitution of India, Art. 14,19,21,31 and 300-A — Art. 226 — after the partition of the country, property owned by appellant’s predecessor was declared to be an evacuee property — an order was passed restoring the land in question to appellants — their grievance arose when officials of Delhi Development Authority claimed that the land is transferred in DDA’s name and they will take possession of it, as per a notification issued in 1962 — about which appellants were not aware of — suit filed — interim order restraining defendant from forcibly dispossessing appellants — suit withdrawn, writ petition filed — dismissed for default — application for restoration — GPA executed by appellant — application for restoration dismissed on the ground that by transferring land in terms of GPA, appellants are pursuing a proxy litigation and a third party right created without permission of court — appealed — held : as averred in the GPA, appellant had not been in possession of land in question — stand of appellant no.1 cannot be accepted in view of section 91 of Indian Evidence Act — impugned order does not warrant any interference — appeal dismissed with costs.

2008 SCCL.COM 1720(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 23378-23379 of 2008 with Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 24389-24390 and 24391-24392 of 2008)
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Petitioner Vs. Revanasiddappa Respondents, decided on 12/18/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Compensation — deposit of the amount — 50% amount ordered to be deposited — the respondents have now filed the Interlocutory applications (IA No. 1&2 in SLPs 23378-79/2008, IA Nos. 3&4 in SLPs 24391-24392/2008), seeking release of pre-deposit amount in terms of the above order granted on 29th of September, 2008 — in the event it is found that the amount deposited by the petitioner in compliance with order dated 29th of September, 2008 is not the amount awarded by the High Court, in that case, it will be open to the claimants/respondents to apply for vacating this interim order.

2009 SCCL.COM 71(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2009 with Crl. A. No. 175 of 2009)
Surendra Kumar Bhatia Appellant Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and others Respondents, decided on 1/30/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 — section 482 — petition under — allowed by Rajasthan High Court and quashing of FIR — appeal by special leave — the said order of the High Court is challenged in these two appeals by special leave. The first is filed by the complainant namely the Deputy Housing Commissioner of Rajasthan Housing Board. The second is filed by `Mithila Nagar Nyay Manch’ claiming to represent the members of the society — whether the immunity under Section 77 IPC is available to a Collector/Land Acquisition Officer/Special Officer who makes an award, by way of settlement or otherwise, under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — the allegations in the FIR did not constitute an offence of cheating or forgery punishable under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC — as the finding of the High Court that the Collector/Special Officer was a Judge has been set aside, the quashing of the FIR with reference to the Special Officer, cannot be upheld. To this extent, the contention of the appellants merits acceptance and the quashing of the FIR with reference to the then Special Officer is set aside. The quashing of FIR as against respondents 1 and 2 will have no bearing on the FIR in so far as the other accused with reference to the 20 bighas of land — appeals allowed partly.

2009 SCCL.COM 77(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4154 of 2000 with Civil Appeal Nos. 4155, 4156 and 6074 of 2000)
Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. and another Appellants Vs. Minguel Martins and others Respondents, decided on 1/20/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Directions issued for demolition of construction — made in survey No.803 (new No.246/2) within the area of Gram Panchayat, Taleigao, for resumption of the land acquired on behalf of appellant No.1, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Limited, earlier known as M/s. Gomantak Land Development Pvt. Ltd. and keeping public access to the Vainguinim beach from point `A’ to point `B’ shown in plan Exhibit-A open without any obstruction of any kind — the High Court did not commit any error by declaring that extension of the hotel building on 1000 sq. mts. of survey No.803 (new No.246/2) is illegal and directed its demolition after following the procedure prescribed under Clause 6 of agreement dated 26.10.1983.

2009 SCCL.COM 121(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 8984-8985 of 2003 with C.A. Nos. 8733-8736 of 2003, 8987-9001 of 2003, 108-115, 116-121, 122-129 and 130 of 2009)
Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. Appellant Vs. Shaik Azam Saheb etc. etc. Respondents, decided on 1/13/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha, Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4(1) — a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued expressing the intention of the State to acquire land to the extent of 87 Acres 96 cents situated in Pasupula and B. Thandrapadu villages for the purpose of establishing a Post Graduation Centre of Sri Krishna Devaraya University — out of the said 87 Acres 96 cents of land, this Court is concerned only with 25 acres of land of which respondents were owners. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award on or about 20.12.1995 fixing the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre for the lands situated in B. Thandrapadu village and Rs.16,000/- per acre for the lands situated in Pasupula village — dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents sought for reference from the Collector before the Civil Court in terms of Section 18 of the said Act — a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court enhanced the market value of the land to Rs.1,90,000/- per acre uniformly for the lands situated in both the villages — the mode and manner in which determination of such valuation are to be carried out would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, namely, whether any deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act is available, or in absence of any such exemplars whether the claim can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of the number of fruit bearing trees and the yield therefrom — for determination of market value again, the positive and negative factors germane therefor should be taken into consideration.

2009 SCCL.COM 182(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1103 of 2009 with I.A. No. 6 in C.A. No. 6747 of 1999)
City Montessori School Appellant Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others Respondents, decided on 2/18/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1884 — sections 4 and 6 — notification under — denotification under section 48 — appellant runs an educational institution situated at 11, Station Road in the town of Lucknow. The premises belong to one Smt. Urmila Bhalla and Smt. Sheela Kapoor. It measured 23,000 sq. ft. of land. The land together with constructions thereupon measuring about 16,000 sq. ft. was given in tenancy in favour of the appellant. The rest of the area, namely, 6,000 sq. ft. was given in tenancy to Late Mr. N.K. Bhargava — allegedly, appellant became a defaulter in payment of rent. A suit for ejectment was filed by the landladies resulting in a decree for eviction passed against it — the school, however, sent a requisition before the State of Uttar Pradesh for acquiring the entire 23,000/- sq. ft. of land on or about 22.7.1976. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued pursuant thereto on or about 7.9.1976 and published in the Official Gazette on 6.10.1979. A declaration in terms of Section 6 of the Act was issued in respect of the entire land measuring 23,000 sq. ft on 6.10.1979 — merely an application for clarification was filed contending that the said judgment did not preclude the appellant from questioning the legality of the denotification. It is, therefore, evident that the appellant did not want that the said order be reviewed in its entirety — order of this Court, thus, has to be reviewed in its entirety or not at all. It was not a case where a clarification would have served the purpose. We have noticed hereinbefore the submission of Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the denotification in terms of Section 48 would have been permissible only when the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 are held to be valid. The conclusion that the said notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6(1) were valid could not have been arrived at by this Court without applying its mind as to whether the judgment of the High Court is correct or not — whether in a situation of this nature, principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. It is now a well settled principle of law that it cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. The Court, despite opining that principle of natural justice was required to be followed, may, however, decline grant of a relief, inter alia, on the premise that the same would lead to a useless formality or that the person concerned, in fact, did not suffer any prejudice — a party consenting to an order cannot be permitted to resile therefrom while retaining the benefit obtained therefrom — no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.

2009 SCCL.COM 212(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1173 of 2009)
C.R. Nagaraja Shetty Appellant Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and another Respondents, decided on2/24/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — compensation — the High Court has erred in directing the deduction on account of the developmental charges at the rate of Rs.25/- per square feet out of the ordered compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square feet — the claimant would, therefore, be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square feet with all the statutory benefits like solatium under Section 23(2), 12% interest under Section 23 (1-A) on the enhanced market value and interest at 9% and 15% as provided under Section 34 of the Act for one year and the rest of the period from the date of taking possession till the date of payment of the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant — appeal allowed partly and order of the High Court modified.

2009 SCCL.COM 219(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2001 with Civil Appeal Nos. 3333 & 3334 of 2001)
T.S. Ramachandra Shetty Appellant Vs. Chairman, Karnataka Housing Board and another Respondents, decided on 1/22/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harijit Sing Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — compensation — the fact is that this very land was purchased by the appellant a year ago i.e. on 24.3.1986 for Rs.45,000/- and for the same land the High Court gave compensation of Rs.1,30,680/- per acre only after a year — the view which has been taken in the impugned judgment is in consonance with the settled legal position. The High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant facts in granting compensation. The High Court was fully justified in giving due weightage to the fact that the sale deed of 1986 in respect of this very acquired land was available and the same ought to be the basis for determining the market value of the land — in the instant case, only an year ago, the appellant himself purchased this very piece of land for Rs.45,000/- and after an year, the State has given compensation of Rs.1,30,680/-, which cannot be said to be inadequate by any stretch of imagination. The Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.2,17,800/- — no interference is called for. These appeals being devoid of merits are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 290(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 493 of 2007 with C.A. Nos. 525/2007, 523/2007, 520/2007, 518/2007, 524/2007, 506/2007, 519/2007, 522/2007, 512/2007, 508/2007, 502/2007, 507/2007, 504/2007, 509/2007, 517/2007, 553/2007, 554/2007, 552/2007, 549/2007, 526/2007, 551/2007, 510/2007, 516/2007, 514/2007, 521/2007, 515/2007, 513/2007, 511/2007, 584/2007, 582/2007, 583/2007, 696/2007, 580/2007, 579/2007, 574/2007, 576/2007, 533/2007, 532/2007, 527/2007, 529/2007, 530/2007, 531/2007, 528/2007, 571/2007, 581/2007, 578/2007, 575/2007, 500/2007, 572/2007, 497/2007, 567/2007, 563/2007, 565/2007, 561/2007, 558/2007, 501/2007, 494/2007, 564/2007, 560/2007, 559/2007, 557/2007, 556/2007, 562/2007, 555/2007, 499/2007, 536/2007, 537/2007, 541/2007, 544/2007, 546/2007, 548/2007, 585/2007, 586/2007, 587/2007, 588/2007, 589/2007, 590/2007, 591/2007, 592/2007, 535/2007, 547/2007, 545/2007, 656/2007, 543/2007, 542/2007, 540/2007, 539/2007, 871/2007, 845/2007, 655/2007, 698/2007, 569/2007, 566/2007, 568/2007, 570/2007, 730 of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C) No. 7457/2007], 731 of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C) No. 7460/2007], 732 of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C)No.7458/2008], 735 of 2009 [arising out of SLP (C) No.3211/09 [CC 3846/2007], 733 of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C) No. 3209/09 [CC 3880/2007], 734 of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C) No. 3210/09 [CC 3893/2007], 736 of 2009 [arising out of SLP (C)No.11558/2007], 737 of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C)No.9385/2007], 738 of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C)No.9485/2007], 739 of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C)No.7031/2006], 740 of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C)No.7032/2006], 741of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C)No.7033/2006], 742 of 2009 [arising out of SLP(C)No.7008/2006])
Faridabad Gas Power Project, NTPC Ltd., etc. Appellants Vs. Om Prakash and others, etc. Respondents, decided on 2/5/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4(1) — land reference — judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge, Faridabad confirmed by the High Court — by the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appeals filed by M/s. Faridabad Gas Power Project, National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, as well as by the land owners — the reference court should have worked out the market value of the acquired land by calculating an increase at least at the cumulative rate of 7.5% per annum for 7 years to arrive at the market value as determined in the year 1995 and then it ought to have deducted 20% in that value as the acquired lands were farther away from Sector-59 — the reference court and the High Court both have not found any tangible evidence led by NTPC to rebut the claim of the claimants.

2009 SCCL.COM 333(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1119 of 2009)
Muthavalli of Sha Madhari Diwan Wakf S.J. Syed Zakrudeen and another Appellants Vs. Syed Zindasha and others Respondents,decided on 2/19/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1898 — section 18 — proceeding under — Code of Civil Procedure — Order I Rule 10 — applicability of — applicability of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 is in question in this appeal.

2009 SCCL.COM 348(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1751 of 2009 with Civil Appeal Nos. 1752 and 1753 of 2009)
D.D.A. Appellant Vs. Mahender Singh and another Respondents, decided on 3/20/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 28 and 34 — challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the Writ Petitions filed by respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 — prayer in the writ petitions was to direct the present appellant to make payment of statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of the land in terms of the award — the Act is a complete Code and lays down detailed procedure for acquisition of land, payment of compensation including solatium and additional market value — while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution there is no scope for direction to pay interest in a manner not contemplated by either Section 28 or 34.

2009 SCCL.COM 352(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1780-1781 of 2009)
Urmila Roy and others Appellants Vs. M/s. Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Ltd. and others Respondents, decided on3/23/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — colourable exercise of power at the instance of the State — the land owners had, in fact, acquiesced to the acquisition and cannot now turn around to say that the acquisition was bad in law — though the execution of the housing scheme has been entrusted to a Joint Sector Company, the overall control over the project has been retained by the Government controlled Board of Directors, full details of the scheme have been provided with large provisions for the benefit of the poorer sections of society, with the allotment of tenements either on a subsidized price or on “no profit no loss” basis for the low and middle income groups respectively, allotment by draw of lots to avoid any arbitrariness and a complete freeze on the price of residential accommodation with no escalation whatsoever for whatever reason and the provision of facilities for effective and comfortable living such as schools, roads, sewage etc. — the housing scheme fully satisfies the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the two cases cited — the appellants had not filed any objection to the acquisition on the plea that some assurance had been held out that they too would be allowed to participate in the housing scheme. This fact has been denied by the respondents and it has been emphasized that as per letter dated 8th March 2001 the land-owners had, in fact, waived their right to challenge the acquisition.

2009 SCCL.COM 353(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2009)
Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 3/4/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 18 — reduction of quantum of compensation as enhanced by the Reference Court from Rs. 83,000/- to 40,226/- order reversed by Bombay High Court — challenged in this appeal.

2009 SCCL.COM 385(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition [C] No. 4782 of 2009)
Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K. Project Appellant/Petitioner Vs. Mahaboob and another Respondents, decided on 2/9/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4(1) — case relates to acquisition of 1 acre 13 guntas of land — compensation at 4,000/- per acre assessed — the reference court by award increased the compensation — petition filed — appeal contending compensation excessive — appeal dismissed — second appeal also dismissed by the High Court — special leave petition.

2009 SCCL.COM 405(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4117-4118 of 2001 with C. A. Nos. 7019-7020 of 2001 with C.A. Nos.7023-7024 of 2001 with C.A. Nos. 7321-7322 of 2001 with C.A. Nos. 7323-7324 of 2001 with C.A. Nos. 1380-1381 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) Nos. 18030-18031 of 2001) and C.A. Nos. 1382-1383 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) Nos. 18231-18232 of 2001))
Rajinder Singh Bhatti & ors with Ram Kumar & ors with Sanjeev Gupta & anr, Suraj Bhan & ors with Daleep Chand & ors Tikka Sahib Singh & anr Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others Respondents, decided on 3/3/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4 — preliminary notification issued — Govt. of Haryana sought to acquire the land for Public purpose — the appellants filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector. The objections made by the appellants were not accepted and the declaration (final notification) under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published in the official gazette on March 6, 1997 — the Land Acquisition Collector then issued notices under Section 9 of the Act calling upon the landowners to make their claim of compensation for all interests in the said land that they may have — since award was not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land lapsed — whether in view of the decision of the government in not approving the award proposed by the Collector, the award could not be made within the period of two years from the date of publication of declaration (final notification under Section 6) and the acquisition of land lapsed, would such lapse of acquisition proceedings amount to withdrawal from the acquisition by the State Government under Section 48(1) of the Act — whether the decision of the State Government for withdrawal from the acquisition under Section 48 (1) is mandatorily required to be published in the official gazette?

2009 SCCL.COM 430(Case/Appeal No: Contempt Petition (C) No. 262 of 2007 in S.L.P. (C) No. 18879 of 2007 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 327 of 2007 in S.L.P. (C) No. 18879 of 2007)
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Petitioner Vs. L.K. Tripathi and others Respondents, decided on 4/1/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India — whether respondent Nos.1 to 5 have willfully disobeyed order dated 30.9.2007 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18879 of 2007 and thereby made themselves liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India and whether respondent No.6 is guilty of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the 1971 Act are the questions which arise for determination in this petition filed by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam through its Presidium Chairman Shri E. Madhusudhanan.

2009 SCCL.COM 501(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4259 of 2002 with Civil Appeal Nos. 4266, 4262, 4260-4261, 4263, 4264-4265 of 2002)
Avinash Dhavaji Naik Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 4/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition for Bombay Project — notification issued — a declaration in terms of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 21.05.1971 — a notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued pursuant whereto the claimants - appellants filed their applications for payment of enhanced compensation — the Land Acquisition Collector made its award. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellants filed applications before the Collector for reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act pursuant whereto reference was made to the Court of District Judge in the year 1986 — the purpose for acquisition of land was building a new city. A vast tract of land was sought to be acquired. Indisputably, in terms of Section 23 of the Act, the market value of the land was required to be determined as was obtaining in the year 1970 when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. It is unfortunate that despite the fact that notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act as far back as on 3.02.1970 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21.05.1971, the award came to be passed only on 30.06.1986 and that too probably, only having regard to the consequences ensuing in terms of Section 11A of the act — if the belting system is taken recourse to, compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. m. would sub-serve the ends of justice — the judgment rendered by the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 4264-65 of 2002 may be a safe guide particularly when the Reference Court itself opined that the valuation of the land should be determined at Rs. 10 per sq. m.

2009 SCCL.COM 509(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 92-105 of 2004 with {C.A. Nos. 106/2004, 107-113/2004, 114-118/2004, 119/2004, 2591-2597/2009(@ SLP[C] Nos.2804-2810/2004})
Navanath and others Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 4/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — by the Govt. — whether the appellants — entitled to additional amount of compensation toward the value of fruit bearing trees or not — these appeals by special leave arise out of a common judgment and order dated 20th/21st March, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the appeals preferred by the State in part — a court of law must base its decision on appreciation of evidence brought on record by applying the correct legal principles. Surmises and conjectures alone cannot form the basis of a judgment — appellants are not in a position to agree with the judgment of the High Court. It is set aside accordingly and that of the Reference Court restored.

2009 SCCL.COM 513(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2566, 2570, 2572-73, 2568, 2574-75, 2567, 2569 of 2009)
Pranita Powerloom Coop. Soc. Ltd. with Parisa Appanna Mangare and others with Kamakshi Tex Fab Pvt. Ltd. and others Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents, decided on 4/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition order — validity of the communication order challenged — by that order the acquisition started in favour of the Ichalkaranji Cooperative Society Ltd. was cancelled. It was contended, inter alia, that the Society was a registered cooperative society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and was established for the purposes of erecting industrial estates for the benefit of its members and that it was active right from 1974 and was also instrumental in setting up Industrial Estate for the areas Kolhapur and Ichalkaranji — the Society challenged this letter dated 30.08.05 on various grounds including the ground that its proposal in its favour of Land Acquisition had reached almost finality and the State Government could not, in the wake of all what had happened, cancel the proposal — in its prayer it sought for a writ of Mandamus directing the Collector Kolhapur to cancel the impugned communication-cum-order dated 30.08.05 — merely because Section 5A enquiry is pending and merely because the objection can be taken by the petitioners, the respondents by themselves will not be able to cure the illegality committed in the issuance of Section 4 Notification.

2009 SCCL.COM 552(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2385 of 2009)
Mohammad Raofuddin Appellant Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer Respondent, decided on 4/13/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 54 — for enhancement of compensation — by the impugned judgment, the High Court has affirmed the award made by the Reference Court, Medak and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant — challenge in this appeal by the claimant-land owner is to the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2004 rendered by the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad — the question for consideration is whether in the light of the said finding of the High Court, it could be said that the High Court has applied a wrong principle of law or has taken into consideration irrelevant material, warranting interference by this Court — merely because a different conclusion could be possible on two sets of sale/acquisition instances, is no ground to interfere with the award of the High Court when it has taken into consideration an instance which is more closer to appellant’s land in respect of the date of acquisition; happened to be in the same village and acquired for the same purpose — do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court.

2009 SCCL.COM 573(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2549-2553 of 2009)
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, etc. Appellants Vs. K.S. Gangadharappa and another etc. Respondents, decided on4/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — correctness of the Award made by the Reference Court in proceedings under — land owners filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation — it is a trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective — deductions can be made for development. But the deductions have to be made from some definite figure. In the instant case the High Court has not indicated any basis but has come to an abrupt conclusion that the claim of the owners for enhancement has to be accepted but not for Rs.9,00,000/- per acre as claimed but at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. Market value has a definite concept and it cannot be evaluated without any foundation or basis — this Court sets aside the impugned judgment of the High Court to decide the matter afresh and indicate a basis for fixation of market value at a definite figure.

2009 SCCL.COM 830(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2367 of 2006 With C.A. No. 2368, 2369, 2370, 2371, 2373, 2374, 2375 of 2006 and 4204 of 2004)
Union of India Appellant(s) Vs. Harpat Singh and others Respondent(s), decided on 5/12/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — acquisition under — compensation — keeping in view its proximity to Delhi, and as the appellant itself had conceded that the minimum compensation be calculated at the rate of Rs.76.55 per sq. yard, that the interest of justice shall be subserved if the market value is raised to 10% thereover.

2009 SCCL.COM 844(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3604 of 2009)
Mahender Pal and others Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others Respondents, decided on 5/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4 read with 17(14) — acquisition of land for public purposes for companies — valuable right of hearing particularly of this nature could have been taken away only if condition precedent exercise of this emergency power stood satisfied — land acquired for — for the development and utilization of land for outer ring road, green belt on both side, Pataudi Road to Jhajjar Road in the area of village Gokalgarh, District Rewari — whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the emergency powers in terms of Section 17 of the Act could have been resorted to by the State — existence of the foundational fact for invoking the aforementioned provision is, therefore, a sine qua non for formation of opinion. Such a subjective satisfaction must be based on an objective criteria. Ipse dixit on the part of the State would not serve the purpose — the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh on merit.

2009 SCCL.COM 887(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4143 of 2009 With C.A. No. 4144 of 2009)
Gram Panchayat Ugra Kheri Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another Respondents, decided on 7/7/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 18 — award passed under — not interfered — judgment set aside and sent for disposal according to law.

2009 SCCL.COM 909(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4163-4165 of 2009 With C.A. Nos. 4166-4176/09 @ SLP© No. 7636-7646/2005, C.A.No.4177/2009 @ SLP© No.7711/2009 and C.A. No. 4178/2009 @ SLP© No.15151/2009 CC. No. 1416/2007))
Chandrashekhar and others Appellant(s) Vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer Respondent(s), decided on 7/8/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — fixation of market value of the lands acquired under — the High Court was not justified in denying the appellants compensation @ Rs.32.10/- pr Sq. Ft. after having recorded its finding that the value of the required land would be not less than @ Rs.32.10/- pr Sq. Ft. on a mere technical ground that the Court Fee paid by the appellants would entitle them to compensation of only Rs.23/- per Sq. Ft. — this Court fixes the market value of the acquired lands of the appellants at Rs.32.10/- per sq. ft. However the rest of the decision of the High Court is affirmed. In other words the appellants are entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest accrued on it. The appellants are also entitled to 12% additional market value on the enhanced compensation from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, till the date of dispossession or till the date of award, whichever is earlier.

2009 SCCL.COM 968(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6228-6229 of 2002)
National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Appellant Vs. Mahesh Dutta and others Respondents, decided on 7/16/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4 and 17 — intention of State to acquire land and the emergency powers related to — taking over possession of land in terms of provisions of the Act would mean actual possession and not symbolic possession — notification under Section 4 — the lands under acquisition vested absolutely with Government — emergency provisions were resorted to — interest granted from the date of acquisition — whether possession of the acquired land had actually been taken or not — the collector under the Act, act as a statutory authority — once presumption is drawn, the burden would be on the State to prove by giving cogent evidence and judicial records to show the possession been taken.

2009 SCCL.COM 1009(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6599 of 2002 With Civil Appeal No. 6600 of 2002)
Manager, Matha Nagar School Appellant Vs. Greater Cochin Development Authority and others Respondents, decided on 7/9/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4 — acquisition of land by issue of notification — respondent purchased 97.91 Acres of land from owner of land at Rs. 2,59,975/- and paid Rs. 1,25,000 as advance to take possession of land — sold some part of land to the school — Board of GCDA passed a resolution & directed the school to pay 50% of the land cost — respondent failed to pay the balance sale price to the landowners — owners filed a suit for getting back the land — hence this appeal — whether the land had vested in GCDA & therefore unnecessary to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings — whether the school liable to pay the actual acquisition cost incurred by GCDA — whether GCDA entitled to claim from school 50% as profit — it cannot be said that the land vested in GCDA merely on negotiations & possession — school cannot escape its liability to pay the actual cost determined with reference to the compensation paid to the landowners — restrict the 50% profit claimed by GCDA — landowners entitled to compensation & other statutory benefits awarded by High Court — GCDA will not be entitled to claim any other amount from school.

2009 SCCL.COM 1052(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4796 of 2009 With Transfer Petition (C) No. 1195 of 2008 with Transfer Petition (C) No. 1196 of 2008 with Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 1207-1209 of 2008)
Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Appellant Vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Respondent, decided on 7/29/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly .
Subject Index: Power to transfer a suit — whether the High Court and/or this Court has the power to transfer a suit pending in a Civil Court situated in one State to a Debt Recovery Tribunal situated in another is the question involved herein.

2009 SCCL.COM 1072(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3874 of 2006 With Civil Appeal Nos. 5763, 5764, 5765, 5766 and 5767 of 2006 And Civil Appeal Nos. 4793-4794 of 2009)
M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Appellant Vs. S.U.T.N.I Sangam and others Respondents, decided on 7/29/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4(1), 12 & 18 — issuing of Notification and finality of awards subject to review of Reference Court — appellant issued a notification and declaration for Land Acquisition — some landowners not only received amount but also filed application for reference under Section 18 — collector was directed to complete the process — compensation determined by Land Acquisition Judge also been paid — order issued that if a person accepted award without protest, lose right to claim under Section 18 — appeal— whether a person had actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of documents — onus would be on landholder to show that he did not have any knowledge of the contents of award — notification directing the Collector to exercise its jurisdiction would amount to constructive knowledge — Land AcquisitionCollector is a statutory authority — no form of protest — no form of application within limited period — appeal allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 1080(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 204 of 2000 With C.A. Nos. 213/2000, 214-219/2000, 205-212/2000, 221-324/2000, 325-331/2000, 4090/2000, 4091/2000, 2973-2978/2001.)
Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat and another Appellants Vs. Madhubai Gobarbhai and another Respondents, decided on7/29/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Acquisition of land — the State of Gujarat issued diverse notifications for acquisition of a huge tract of lands for construction of a dam over a river known as `Thebi’. The lands sought to be acquired were spread over in three villages, namely, Amreli, Baxipur and Giriya — theLand Acquisition Officer made three different awards for three different villages — out of 350 land owners, however, only 156 land owners filed applications for reference before the Collector in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — the Reference Court and High Court refused to take into consideration a large number of deeds of sale (Exh. 86 to 100) produced by the State — is what principles should be applied for determining the market value of the land. It is now a well settled principle of law that the determination of the market value of the land acquired, indisputably would depend upon a large number of factors, nature and quality of the lands is one of them — the Reference Judge as also the High Court had proceeded to determine the market value inter alia relying upon or on the basis of some deeds of sale ; valuation report; the circular letter issued by the Collector in regard to premium payable on conversion of land etc — the market value of the land would be determined at Rs.240/- per square feet, the lands on which the godowns have been constructed, the amount of compensation shall be calculated at the rental value thereof by following the method adopted by the High Court. For the said purpose, the matter is remitted to the Land AcquisitionOfficer.

2009 SCCL.COM 1083(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5073 of 2009)
Muthyam Agaiah Goud Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another Respondent, decided on 8/4/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — section 18 — application under — impugned order set aside and it is ordered — send the case back to the Reference Court to decide the said application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order within six months from the date of communication of this order to it.

2009 SCCL.COM 1096(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7203 of 2004 With Civil Appeal Nos. 7204 to 7208 of 2004)
Attar Singh and another Appellants Vs. Union of India and another Respondents, decided on 8/4/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — appellants were owners of agricultural land — notification issued by Union of India with intention to acquire the land — Land Acquisition collector made award categorizing the acquired lands in three categories i.e. ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and fixed market value as Rs. 5,800/-, Rs. 4,800/- and Rs. 2,400/- per bigha — appeal for assessment of fair market value — whether any agreement entered into by and between the holders of lands and the Union of India in a Lok Adalat should have formed the basis for determination of the amount of compensation in respect of land — held No — High Court was required to determine the fair market value of the land on the basis of legal principles — no contention could be raised that the High Court in passing judgement failed to take into consideration the well settled legal principles — appeal dismissed with no cost.

2009 SCCL.COM 2000(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7209 of 2004 With Civil Appeal No. 7210 of 2004)
Bhagat Singh and others Appellants Vs. Union of India and another Respondents, decided on 8/4/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — compensation for acquiring land for public purpose — notification under Section 4 was issued and compensation was offered categorizing the acquired lands in three categories ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ — reference Court determined the fair market value at Rs. 23,970/-, Rs. 21,970/- & Rs. 19,970/- per bigha — appeal by appellants claiming compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- per bigha — what principle should be applied for determining the market value of land — in absence of any material brought on record, difficult to disagree with High Court’s opinion — appeal dismissed with no cost.

2009 SCCL.COM 2025(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3726 of 2001)
Saibanna `Dead’ by LRs. Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer Respondent, decided on 8/19/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — deduction at the rate of 53% towards development charges — preliminary notification issued acquiring 4 acres and 27 guntas of land belonging to appellant — compensation awarded @ Rs. 2,500/- per acre — reference Court determined the market value @ Rs. 19,500/- per acre — whether deduction at the rate of 53% was in consonance with law? — No — direct the respondent to make deduction at the rate of 33-1/3% towards development charges — impugned judgement of the High Court modified to the extent of deduction charges — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 2027(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5614 of 2009)
Vijay Narayan Thatte and others Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents, decided on 8/18/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 6 — notification for the acquisition of land — application of Section 6, time barred — notification under Section 4 was issued in respect of land in question on 29.8.2002 — notification under Section 6 was issued on 18.6.2003 — quashed — second notification under Section 6 was issued on 30.10.2006 — whether the notification under Section 6 dated 30.10.2006 is valid — No — Section 6 totally mandatory and hence time-barred — set aside the impugned judgement — open to respondent to issue fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act — appeal allowed with no cost.

2009 SCCL.COM 2065(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4945 of 2006 With C.A. Nos. 4946, 4947, 4948, 4949, 4950, 4951, 4952, 4953, 4954, 4955, 4956, 4957, 4958, 4959, 4960, 4961, 4962, 4963, 4964, 4965, 4966, 4967, 4968, 4969, 4970, 4971, 4972, 4973, 4974, 4976, 4977, 5134, 5135, 5136, 5351, and 5890 of 2006 And C.A. Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 465, 603, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1295, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984, 2461, 2679, 2721, 2722, 2723, 3990, and 4693 of 2007)
Lal Chand Appellant Vs. Union of India and another Respondents, decided on 8/12/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4(1) — Issuance of Notification — determination of market value acquired for (i) construction of a supplementary drain; (ii) construction of sewage treatment plant; (iii) re-modelling of Nangloi drain; (iv) planned development of Delhi — whether valuation of the High Court is proper? — No — for several sale deeds, the Land Acquisition Collector chose to award a higher rate to some of the acquired lands — leads to inevitable inference — liable to be excluded from consideration — Rithala region shall cease to be a rural area — acquired lands situated in area having a potential for development for residential use — appropriate deduction towards development needs to be only 40% instead of 60% to 70% — increasing the compensation from Rs. 27,000/- to Rs. 30,500/- per bigha and from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 28,000/- per bigha — statutory benefits and interest awarded not disturbed — appeal partly allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 2066(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 8500-8501 of 2001 With Contempt Petition Nos. 252-253 of 2001)
Shanti Sports Club and another Appellants Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 8/25/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 48(1) — completion of acquisition not compulsory — Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 — Section 3 — prohibition against transfer of the acquired land — the land owners aware of the prohibition on transfer of the acquired land — by taking advantage of the stay order by High Court entered into same clandestine transaction — acquired possession of the land and proceeded to build the sports complex and commercial facilities — held that nothing recorded in the official files by the officers of the Government do not become decisions of the Government unless sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in the name of the President or Governor, authenticated and communicated to the affected persons — nothing was neither translated into an order nor the same was published in official gazette thus cannot be relied — Government rightly refused to exercise discretion under Section 48(1) for de-notifying the acquired land — appellants cannot plead equity and seek court’s intervention for protection of the unauthorised constructions raised by them — appeals dismissed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3000(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2213 of 2001 With Civil Appeal No. 2214 of 2001 Civil Appeal No. 2215 of 2001 Civil Appeal Nos. 2216-2220 of 2001 Civil Appeal Nos. 2221-2227 of 2001Civil Appeal No. 2228 of 2001 Civil Appeal Nos. 2090-2101 of 2004)
Charan Dass (Dead) by LRs. Appellant(s) Kishan Singh Appellant Basti Ram Appellant Devki Nand Appellant Jai Kishan and others Appellants Harpal Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others Respondent(s), decided on 9/7/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 & 18 — notification for acquisition of land & reference — notification under Section 4 was issued and published for acquisition of land — quality of lands fell in different categories and announced compensation @ Rs. 32,073/-, Rs. 24,288/- and Rs. 7,785/- per bigha — appellant filed Reference applications — High Court enhanced the average amount on account of escalation of the prices and determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1.5 lakhs per bigha with 40% deduction towards development charges — held the location and the date of sale relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land — no legal or factual infirmity in the approach of High Court in ascertaining the market value of the land — deduction of 30% towards development charges — compensation to be assessed at Rs. 1,05,000/- per Bigha.

2009 SCCL.COM 3019(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6235-6236 of 2009)
Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bailhongal Appellant Vs. Quasami Janab Ajmatalla Salamulla and another Respondents, decided on 9/11/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — determination of compensation — 8 acres 7 guntas of respondent’s land acquired for the benefit of the Appellant Market Committee — determined compensation as Rs. 36,000/- per acre — reference Court — increased it to Rs. 4 lacs per acre — High Court reduced the compensation with marginal reduction to Rs. 3,75,200/- per acre — hence this appeal — no basis for calculating the value of compensation — no explanation why other sale transactions ignored — no finding that the land at serial No. 6 is comparable to the acquired land and have similar development potential — no reasoning why the deduction towards developmental charges restricted to 33% instead of the standard deduction of 50% to 67% applicable to agricultural land — matter remanded back to the High Court for fresh disposal — set aside the judgement of the High Court — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3029(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4849-4850 of 2000)
Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi Appellant Vs. Lt. Governor, Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi and others Respondents, decided on 9/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4, 5A and 6 — notification and declaration of Land Acquisition and exempted land — notification issued — appellant filed objections under Section 5A that the land be exempted from the proposed acquisition — possession of 1933 Bighas and 2 Biswas taken by the collector and handed over to the beneficiary department — held that while taking possession of a large area of land with a large no. of owners, would be impossible for the Collector or the Revenue official to enter each Bigha or biswas and to take possession — no question ever been raised by the appellant with regard to the presence of a wall in the objections — assuming that the appellant had re-entered the land on account of the various interim orders granted by the courts, or even otherwise, it would have no effect for two reasons, (1) that the suits/petitions were ultimately dismissed and (2) that the land once having vested in the Government by virtue of Section 16 of the Act, re-entry by the land owner would not obliterate the consequences of vesting — appeals dismissed with costs at Rs. 2 lacs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3036(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10598 of 2009)
State of Goa and another Appellants/Petitioners Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others Respondents, decided on 9/14/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — determination of compensation — acquisition of land under preliminary notification — reference Court increased the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs. 7/- per sq. m. to Rs. 154/- per sq. m. — High Court found that compensation to a comparable land awarded at the higher rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. m. — hence this appeal — determination of market value of the acquired land with reference to the value of comparable land cannot be faulted — landowner also be entitled to statutory benefits cannot be taken into account, when determining the market value of the acquired land for purpose of compensation — no interference to the order of the High Court — Special Leave petition dismissed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3044(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1271 of 2002)
State of Orissa and others Appellants Vs. Chitrasen Bhoi Respondent, decided on 9/16/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — re-determination of compensation — acquisition of the huge area of land — Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 2,500/- per acre — respondent no. 1 did not agitate on the compensation — reference filed by other persons whose lands stood notified by the same notification — assessed the market value @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre — respondent filed application under Section 28-A claiming the same market value for his land — writ petition by respondent allowed by the High Court — hence this appeal — application filed within 3 months from the date of reference award — Section 28-A seeks to confer the benefit of enhanced compensation on those owners who did not seek Reference under Section 18 of the Act — directed the Land Acquisition Collector to consider the issue of maintainability of the application filed by respondent without considering the issue of limitation — appeal dismissed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3051(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6864 of 2009)
Babu Ram and another Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another Respondents, decided on 10/7/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 read with Section 17 and Section 5-A — notification for urgent requirement of Land Acquisition for the construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant — whether the provisions of Section 17(4) had been validly invoked by the respondents for the purpose of acquiring the lands in question for the Sewage Treatment Plant — whether the lands already been utilized for the Sewage Treatment Plant? — held that right to file objection to the proposed acquisition been taken away by invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) — Section 5-A is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution — since objection under Section 5-A filed within 6 months from the date of notification issued, it cannot be said that there was either any negligence or lapse or delay on the part of the appellants — project site not utilized by the time — directed that the appellants will be at liberty to file objections under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act within a month from the date before the concerned authority — appeal disposed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3067(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1853 of 2007 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1981 of 2007, 4118 to 4124 of 2008, 4283, 5429 of 2008 and 551 of 2009 And CA No. 5792 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 1684/2007) CA No. 5361 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No.6560/2007) CA No. 5362 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 6563/2007) CA No. 5363 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 8259/2007) CA No. 5364 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 12121/2007) CA No. 5365 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 12746/2007) CA No. 5366 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 12933/2007) CA No. 5367 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 12935/2007) CA No. 5368 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 12936/2007) CA Nos. 5369-5370 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No.12937-12938/2007) CA No. 5371 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 12939/2007) CA No. 5372 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 12940/2007) CA Nos. 5373-5374 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 12942-12943/2007) CA No. 5375 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 14313/2007) CA No. 5377 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 14314/2007) CA No. 5378 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 14315/2007) CA No. 5379 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 16352/2007) CA No. 5380 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 16353/2007) CA No. 5381 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 4334/2008) CA No. 5382 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 13579/2008) CA Nos. 5383-5384 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 16207-16208/2008) CA No. 5385 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No. 28889/2008))
Karam Singh (Dead) through LRs and others Appellants Vs. Union of India and another Respondents, decided on 8/12/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Section 18 — reference — appeals by the claimants — for increase in compensation to acquisitions of land — appeals partly allowed in connection of C.A. No. 4945 of 2006

2009 SCCL.COM 3099(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2009 With Civil Appeal No. 7021 of 2009 with Civil Appeal No. 7022 of 2009 with Civil Appeal No. 7052 of 2009 with Civil Appeal No. 7023 of 2009)
Haryana State Industrial Dev. Corp. Appellant(s) Vs. Shakuntla and others Respondent(s), decided on 10/22/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4, 5 and 6 — Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 — Section 3 — notification issued for acquisition of land — objection filed by the respondent-1 for exclusion of their lands from acquisition — as per the report of High Powered Committee, High Court ordered the acquisition of land of respondent No. 1 and released the land belonging to M/s Orient Crafts — release of the land of M/s Orient Craft may be said to be based on the logic that as the undertaking of M/s Orient Craft to release their land as desired by the department had fulfilled the lands needed by the HSIDC — Section 3 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 does not explicitly require the maintenance of 50 meters green belt, cannot be allowed to frustrate the attempt to meet the ever increasing economic needs of rapid industrialisation — respondent land released from acquisition on the same grounds as was applied for the land of M/s Orient Craft — appeals disposed of with the modification in the impugned judgement of the High Court — no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3121(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7312 of 2009)
Kamrul Islam Alvi Appellant Vs. State of M.P. Respondent, decided on 11/4/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 18 — appellant’s land acquired for construction of Bagda Branch Canal — Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 43,463.75 ps. as total amount of compensation payable to the appellant with respect to water reservoir and sluice gate — Reference Court fixed a sum of Rs.5,45,738 as compensation for the reservoir and sluice gate together with 30% solatium and interest as required to be paid to the appellant under the provisions of the Act — Division Bench of the High Court set aside the award passed by Reference Court and upheld the compensation of Rs. 43,463/- as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer — no appeal preferred by the State against the said order passed by the Reference Court, hence the order attained finality — held the order of the High Court legally not tenable, thus set aside and quashed — award by the Reference Court restored — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3196(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5844 of 2004 With C.A. Nos. 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506 of 2005, 5226-5230 of 2007 and 2893 of 2009)
Sudh Ram and others Appellants Vs. Haryana State and another Respondents, decided on 10/20/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 24 — for determination of compensation — Land Acquisition Collector offered compensation for acquiring land @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre, Rs. 50,000/- per acre and Rs. 40,000/- per acre — Reference Court increased the compensation uniformly to Rs. 36.20 per sq. yd. i.e. Rs. 1,75,200/- per acre — determination by the Reference Court affirmed by the High Court — hence this appeal for enhancement of compensation — held appropriate to limit the deduction to 40% towards development cost as all the acquired lands adjoin a State Highway. Thus marked the market value @ Rs. 59/34 per sq.yd. i.e. Rs. 2,87,200/- per acre — held that the use to which the acquired land may be put, can have no bearing upon the deduction to be made towards development cost and the purpose of acquisition cannot be a factor to increase the compensation — held mandatory to deduct an appropriate percentage towards development cost — appeal allowed — increased the compensation for the acquired lands to Rs. 2,87,500/- per acre plus solatium at 30% with interest on the total compensation.

2009 SCCL.COM 3230(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8235 of 2009)
R. Kolandaivelu (Dead) by Lrs. and others Appellants Vs. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu and another Respondents, decided on 12/11/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 11A — questioning the validity and legality of the notification and the declaration of the acquisition proceedings after the expiry of the period of 2 years — although initially the interim order was passed for four weeks, the same interim order was made final until further orders, therefore, cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to expiry of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act relating to the acquired lands — held that the respondents entitled to exclude the period from 11th February 1988 to 3rd July, 1991 under Section 11A, the award was within time and, therefore, the question of holding that the acquisition proceeding must lapse because of expiry of the said period, cannot arise at all — no interference to the impugned order of the High Court — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 21(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 192 of 2010)
Shyam Gopal Bindal and others Appellant(s) Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another Respondent(s), decided on 1/11/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — application to adduce additional records — appellants claimed to be owners in possession of the suit land — Urban Improvement Trust (UTI) disclosed that the land in question had been acquired and the appellants with other co-owners were asked to receive the compensation — predecessors of the appellants filed suit for seeking an injunction and declaration but not produced any oral and documentary evidence to prove the disputed property as their personal property, thus, suit of the plaintiff dismissed — appellants filed appeal and an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence which was rejected by the Appellate Court and the High Court — appeal — the original plaintiff passed away during the pendency of the civil suit, thus, held that the opportunity to produce documents on record available to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff — orders of the Appellate Court and of the High Court set aside — appeal and application for additional evidence allowed — matter remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision.

2010 SCCL.COM 40(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 2001)
Mandal Revenue Officer Appellant Vs. Goundla Venkaiah and another Respondents, decided on 1/6/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 — predecessor of the respondents (Gonda Mallaiah) illegally occupied 5 acres land — notices were issued but no order passed of his eviction under the Encroachment Act — respondents being LRs pleaded that they acquired title over the Scheduled property by adverse possession — Division Bench not disturbed concurrent finding recorded by the Special Tribunal and the Special Court that the schedule land is Government land but set aside the orders passed by them to handover possession of the Scheduled land to the Government on the premise that the respondents acquired title by adverse possession — appeal — whether the Division Bench of the High Court justified in interfering with the orders passed by the Special Tribunal and Special Court for eviction of the respondents — No — respondents failed to prove that their possession was open and hostile to the Government so as to entitle them to claim title over the schedule land by adverse possession — respondents not produced any evidence before the Special Tribunal regarding the point of time when Gonda Mallaiah occupied the land and started cultivation — impugned order of the High Court set aside and that of the Special Tribunal and Special Court restored — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 66(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 3148 and 3149 of 2002)
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Appellant Vs. L. Chandrasekaran (Dead) by LRs. and others Respondents, decided on 1/29/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997 — Section 48-B — issue of utilization of the acquired land by the appellant-Board — respondent submitted a representation to the State Government for reconveyance of the acquired land to him in terms of Section 48-B — representation rejected by the State Government — respondent filed petition for direction to the State Government to release his land because the same had not been utilized for the purpose enumerated in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act — Single Judge dismissed the petition and held that in terms of Section 48-B of the Act, the Government is empowered to decide whether the acquired land is no longer required for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose and the decision cannot be nullified by the Court unless it is shown to be totally arbitrary or malafide — Division Bench not found illegality in the orders of the learned Single Judge but directed the appellant-Board to reconvey the land to the respondents subject to their depositing the amount of compensation together with interest — appeal — whether the decision taken by the State Government not to transfer the acquired land to the respondents is vitiated by arbitrariness or is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution — no — report sent by the appellant-Board to the State Government showed that the purpose for which the land was acquired is still subsisting — held the direction given by the Division Bench to the appellant-Board to reconvey the acquired land to the respondents is per se against the Section 48-B of the Act in terms of which only the Government can transfer the acquired land if it is satisfied that the same is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose — impugned judgement of the Division Bench set aside and of the learned Single Judge restored — appeal allowed with costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 98(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1514 of 2010 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9389 of 2005] With C.A.No.1515 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.9498 of 2005]; C.A.No.1516 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.10871 of 2005]; C.A.No.1517 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.18087 of 2005]; C.A.No.1518 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.23338 of 2005]; C.A.No.1519 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.22867 of 2005]; C.A.No.1520 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.22953 of 2005]; C.A.No.1521 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.23339 of 2005]; C.A.No.1522 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.22971 of 2005]; C.A.No.1523 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.23083 of 2005]; C.A.No.1524 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.23390 of 2005]; C.A.No.1525 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.24910 of 2005]; C.A.No.1526 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.24934 of 2005]; C.A.No.1527 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25786 of 2005]; C.A.No.1528 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25789 of 2005]; C.A.No.1529 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25790 of 2005]; C.A.No.1530 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25792 of 2005]; C.A.No.1531 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25794 of 2005]; C.A.No.1532 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25795 of 2005]; C.A.No.1533 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25895 of 2005]; C.A.No.1534 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25168 of 2005]; C.A.No.1535 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1621 of 2006]; C.A.Nos.1536-38 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) Nos.1608-1610 of 2006]; C.A.No.1539 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25836 of 2005]; C.A.No.1540 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1611 of 2006]; C.A.No.1541 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1612 of 2006]; C.A.No.1542 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1613 of 2006]; C.A.No.1543 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1614 of 2006]; C.A.No.1544 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1616 of 2006]; C.A.No.1545 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1617 of 2006]; C.A.No.1546 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.26418 of 2005]; C.A.No.1547 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.26431 of 2005]; C.A.No.1548 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.26738 of 2005]; C.A.No.1549 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1618 of 2006]; C.A.No.1550 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.26537 of 2005]; C.A.No.1551 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.26881 of 2005]; C.A.No.1552 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.26900 of 2005]; C.A.No.1553 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1619 of 2006]; C.A.No.1554 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4552 of 2010] (CC No. 553); C.A.No.1555 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4553 of 2010] (CC No. 757); C.A.No.1556 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1874 of 2006]; C.A.No.1557 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4554 of 2010] (CC NO. 993); C.A.No.1558 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4075 of 2006]; C.A.No.1559 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4164 of 2006]; C.A.No.1560 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4642 of 2006]; C.A.No.1561 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.6077 of 2006]; C.A.No.1562 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.6078 of 2006]; C.A.No.1563 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.6016 of 2006]; C.A.No.1564 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.6089 of 2006]; C.A.No.1565 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.6069 of 2006]; C.A.No.1566 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.7483 of 2006]; C.A.No.1567 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.8261 of 2006]; C.A.No.1568 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.11240 of 2006]; C.A.No.1569 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.6138 of 2006]; C.A.No.1570 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.6140 of 2006]; C.A.No.1571 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.13138 of 2006]; C.A.No.1572 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.15800 of 2006]; C.A.No.1573 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.15804 of 2006]; C.A.No.1574 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.258 of 2007]; C.A.No.1575 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.12932 of 2007]; C.A.No.1576 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4558 of 2010] (CC No.1003); C.A.No.1577 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4559 of 2010] (CC No.1931); C.A.No.1578 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.18566 of 2007]; C.A.No.1579 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.7102 of 2008]; C.A.No.1580 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.20180 of 2007]; C.A.No.1581 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4419 of 2007]; C.A.No.1582 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.20591 of 2006]; C.A.No.1583 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4420 of 2007]; C.A.No.1584 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4421 of 2007]; C.A.No.1585 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) NO.4422 of 2007]; C.A.No.1586 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4423 of 2007]; C.A.No.1587 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.137 of 2007]; C.A.No.1588 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.167 of 2007]; C.A.No.1589 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.11290 of 2007]; C.A.No.1590 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.18822 of 2007]; C.A.Nos.1591-92 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) Nos.4565-66 of 2010] (CC Nos.10441-10442); C.A.No.1593 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.6912 of 2006]; C.A.No.1594 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.6913 of 2006]; C.A.No.1595 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.7690 of 2007]; C.A.No.1596 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.9394 of 2007]; C.A.No.1597 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25103 of 2005]; C.A.No.1598 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25119 of 2005]; C.A.No.1599 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25141 of 2005]; C.A.No.1600 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25417 of 2005]; C.A.No.1601 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25436 of 2005]; C.A.No.1602 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25440 of 2005]; C.A.No.1603 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.21662 of 2005]; C.A.No.1604 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.22607 of 2005]; C.A.No.1605 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.22722 of 2005]; C.A.No.1606 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4573 of 2010](CC No. 711); C.A.No.1607 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4575 of 2010] (CC No. 779); C.A.No.1608 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4579 of 2010] (CC No. 803); C.A.No.1609 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4580 of 2010] (CC No. 850); C.A.No.1610 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4581 of 2010] (CC NO.906); C.A.No.1611 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4583 of 2010] (CC NO. 928); C.A.No.1612 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4584 of 2010] (CC No. 963); C.A.No.1613-1614 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.15791-15792 of 2009]; C.A.No.1615 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.27029 of 2008]; C.A.No.1616 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.9504 f 2009]; C.A.No.1617 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.538 of 2007]; C.A.No.1618 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4586 of 2010] (CC No.10061); C.A.No.1619 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.25787 of 2005]; C.A.No.1620 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4588 of 2010] [CC 13301]; and C.A.No.1621 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No.4589 of 2010] [CC 13568].)
Om Parkash Petitioner/Appellant Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 2/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 6 and 5A — notifications/declarations under Section 4 been issued on two different dates and were not challenged by the appellants — further four notifications were issued u/s 6 of the Act — some land-owners challenged the said declaration/notification issued under Section 6 of the Act before the High Court on the ground that no declaration been issued within the statutory period of three years — High Court allowed the petitions filed by the appellants on earlier dates — appellant claimed parity on the ground of bonafide mistake and challenged the same acquisition proceedings afterwards but the appellant’s petition dismissed by the High Court on the grounds of delay and laches — whether even in those cases where there has been no stay order granted in favour of the land owners, the period of limitation would be three years from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 or it would be more on account of stay order granted in other matter in which such appellants were not parties — held that when declaration is quashed by any Court, it would only ensure to the benefit of those who had approached the Court and on account of omission of the appellants, they cannot be granted dividend for their own defaults, thus, the final quashment of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act by any Court, in some other matter, cannot be extended to the benefit of the present appellants — this Court held that for all remaining lands for which neither the notifications under Section 4 nor declarations under Section 6 have been quashed, acquisition proceedings, notification/declaration issued for remaining lands would continue to hold good — appeal dismissed with costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 104(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5440 of 2000 With Civil Appeal Nos. 5441, 5442, 5443, 5444, 5445, 5446 and 5449 of 2000)
Hari Ram and another Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana and others Respondents, decided on 2/11/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 6 — notification and declaration under — several writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on diverse grounds — in view of the recommendations by the Joint Inspection Committee, the Division Bench ordered release of land in favour of 22 owners and dismissed the writ petition of other petitioners including the present appellants — later on, the State Government while applying their powers u/s 48, released some land of writ petitioners from acquisition — appeal — whether the action of the State Government in rejecting the appellants’ representations for withdrawal from acquisition of their land is an ultra vires act and discriminatory? — Yes — no firm policy with regard to release of land from acquisition existed under Section 48 — this Court held that passing different orders in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act in respect of persons similarly situated relating to same acquisition proceedings and for same public purpose is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be held to be discriminatory — impugned order of the State Government set aside — respondent No. 1 is directed to issue appropriate order/s concerning the appellants’ lands on the same terms as been done in the matters of other land-owners — appeals allowed — no cost.

2010 SCCL.COM 117(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1150-1167 of 2010 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 22006-22023 of 2005) With CA Nos. 1168-1169 of 2010 (@ SLP © Nos. 23330-23331 of 2005) CA No. 1170 of 2010 (@ SLP © No. 23631 of 2005) CA Nos. 1171-1178 of 2010 (@ SLP © Nos. 24057-24064 of 2005) CA Nos. 1179-1184 of 2010 (@ SLP © Nos. 25984-25989 of 2005) CA Nos. 1185-1195 of 2010 (@ SLP © Nos. 26689-26699 of 2005))
Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Appellant Vs. Raghubir Singh, Etc. Respondent, decided on 1/29/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — division of acquired land — the collector divided the acquired lands into three belts — the Reference Court restricted the division of the acquired land into two belts and adopted the rates fixed by the Collector for the first and second belts — the High Court treated all the acquired lands uniformly and awarded the same compensation for all lands by adopting the base rate of Rs. 26/25 fixed by the Collector with all statutory benefits to the claimants — both the Authority and the claimants challenged the award of the High Court — whether the High Court ought to have adopted the belt method for award of compensation? — No — whether the compensation awarded requires to be increased? — Yes — whether the award of interest under section 28 of the Act is not sustainable? — No — the acquisition related to a comparatively small extent of village land and the High Court viewed that the size and situation did not warrant any belting and all lands deserved the same rate of compensation — held that the value arrived at by the Collector, and accepted by the Reference Court and the High Court increased the same by 12% as the preliminary notification was one year after the relied upon sale transaction — this Court held that the award of interest on the enhanced amount under section 28 of the Act is the normal rule — appeals filed by the Authority dismissed and of the claimants-land-owners allowed — amount of compensation increased to Rs. 29.50 per sq.ft. with all the statutory benefits to the claimants/land-owners.

2010 SCCL.COM 134(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6240-6243 of 2001 With Civil Appeal Nos. 6244-6248 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No. 495-504 of 2002)
Sagunthala (Dead) through Lrs. Appellant(s) Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) and others Respondent(s), decided on 2/24/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 and 18 — determination of compensation — classification and fixation of the market value of the acquired lands — Reference Court treated the disputed lands as potential house sites and fixed the market value at Rs.1,75,000/- per acre — High Court set aside the order of the Reference Court and fixed the market value at Rs. 75,000/- per acre on the ground that plots of lands acquired were agricultural lands — appeal — disputed lands found situated near the factory premises adjoining the main road and also near the residential colonies — as per the evidences on record, this Court observed that the presence of number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said lands being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites — impugned judgement of the High Court set aside and the order of the Reference Court upheld — appeals allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 136(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8636 of 2002 With Civil Appeal No. 8637 of 2002)
Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. and others Appellant(s) Vs. Union of India and others Respondent(s), decided on 3/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 18 and 54 — enhancement of compensation of the acquired lands — appellants purchased the property subjected to the acquisition in a public auction — notification under Section 4 issued for acquiring land for public purpose — Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) determined the market value of the acquired land of the claimants @ Rs.550/- per sq. yd. and, awarded solatium @ 30% and an additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act @ 12% p.a. — Reference Court held the compensation awarded by the LAC adequate — Division Bench enhanced the compensation @ Rs.3000/- per sq. yd. with all other statutory benefits to the appellants/claimants — appeal — whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation than that fixed by the High Court or Union of India is justified in seeking reduction of the market value/compensation for the acquired land — this Court held that merely on the basis of ‘circle rate’, market value for acquired lands cannot be fixed but, at the same time, the locality and the prevailing circumstances are relevant for determining the real value of the land — evidence of PW-2 showed that the acquired plot was located in the midst of commercial properties and within the developed commercial hub of Karol Bagh having all facilities — held the amount determined by the High Court just, reasonable and acceptable — appeals dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 139(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2069-2070 of 2010 With Civil Appeal Nos. 2071-2072 of 2010)
Bhagwan Das and others Appellants with Nayantara Gupta and others Appellants Vs. State of UP and others Respondents, decided on2/26/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 18 and 54 — rejection of reference application for determination of compensation — appellants lands were acquired under preliminary and final notifications — compensation award made by the Land Acquisition Collector and appellants were served notice after 6 months to receive the compensation from the Collector’s office — appellants made an application seeking a reference under Section 18 for determination of compensation — the Collector rejected the application seeking reference, on the ground that it was made beyond a period of six months from the date of the award, prescribed under Section 18(2) — appellants filed writ petition for quashing the said order but dismissed on the ground that the appeal maintainable under Section 54 — review petition filed by the appellants also dismissed — appeal — whether an appeal would lie under Section 54 of the Act against the order of the Collector refusing to make a reference? — No — whether the period of six months under clause (b) of the proviso to section 18 of the Act should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the award of the Collector or from the date of award itself? — whether the appellants were entitled to relief? — not disputed that the award was not made in the presence of the claimant-land owners — notice on the date of award was issued under Section 12(2) but was not sent by post nor served on the land-owners — held that in the absence of any evidence placed by the Collector to show knowledge on the part of the appellants, the claim of the appellants that they did not had the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference to be accepted — impugned orders of the High Court set aside — Collector is directed to make a reference to the civil court under section 18 of the Act — appeals allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 161(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2002)
Stanes Higher Secondary School Appellant Vs. Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on3/9/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 18 and 25 — rules as to amount of compensation — playground of the appellant-School acquired by the respondent by notification under Section 4 for the purpose of expansion of road — Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation @ Rs. 4/- per sq.ft. and 15% solatium — appellant-School made a reference under Section 18 and the Reference Court fixed the compensation @ Rs. 20/- per sq.ft. and 15% solatium with interest @ 4% from the date of possession till the payment — High Court modified the decree reducing the compensation to Rs. 10/- per sq.ft. with interest @ 9% and solatium at 30% of the market value — appeal — both the notification and the award issued prior to the amendment of Section 25, thus, held the parties governed by an unamended provision of law — no interference to the impugned judgement of the High Court — appeal disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 203(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2856 of 2010)
Prem Chand and others Appellants Vs. Union of India Respondent, decided on 3/30/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23(1-A) — benefit of additional compensation — High Court awarded the Land Acquisitioncompensation @ Rs.39,300/- per bigha to the claimants and ordered that the appellants would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) — appeal — this Court observed that the claimants be entitled to the compensation under Section 23 (1-A) read with Section 30 (1) (b) since the award had not been made on or before 30.04.1982 — not disputed that for the lands at the nearby areas which were identically circumstanced to the acquired lands of the claimants were granted compensation @ Rs. 76,550/- — acquired lands of the claimants found to be already developed into plots, thus, scale down the compensation by deducting 10 per cent of the rate of Rs.76,550/- — this Court directed to pay compensation @ Rs.69,550 plus the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) read with Section 30(1)(b) to the claimants/appellants — appeal partly allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 218(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2008 With Civil Appeal Nos. 74 and 215 of 2008)
M/s. Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. and others Appellants Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others Respondents, decided on 4/5/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Change of alignment — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 5 and 6 — acquisition notifications issued for the Outer Ring Road (ORR) Project for the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad — since the alignment of the Western Sector was comprised hillocks, tanks and lakes, representations were made for change of the said alignment — as per the revised alignment, a notification issued under Section 4(1) for the purpose of acquiring the land belonging to the appellants and a draft declaration under Section 6 was issued for the acquisition of their lands for formation of the Outer Ring Road — appellants challenged the acquisition of their lands — this Court observed that both the two alignments touch and disturb existing water bodies, which was the main ground for the change of alignment as in terms of the environmental policies of the State Government, the Western Sector of the project has been shown to be a highly ecologically sensitive zone — found that the major stretch of the Outer Ring Road said to have been completed and only a small stretch involving the plots of the appellants, is yet to be completed — this Court held that the public interest out-weigh the interest of the individual plot holders, thus, the appellants objections to the use of the lands for the purpose of the Outer Ring Road have to give way to the construction of the said road — appeals disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 226(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2934 of 2010)
Mysore Urban Development Authority by its Commissioner Appellant Vs. Veer Kumar Jain and others Respondents, decided on4/1/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 — Section 19(7) — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 16(2) and 48 — Karnataka General Clauses Act — Section 21 — a notification issued confirming that the possession of the acquired lands had been taken over and vested in the government and later in MUDA — acting on the applications of some land owners, the state government issued a notification dropping the acquisition proceedings, in regard to 17 acres 21 guntas of the lands — the land owners sold the de-notified lands to the first respondent — MUDA represented to the government that the lands could not be de-notified without hearing it — State Government issued another notification withdrawing the notification — respondent No. 1 challenged the notification on the ground that the owners of the lands were not heard before withdrawing the notification — learned Single Judge held that when a notification under section 48(1) is issued, a valuable right relating to property was acquired by the land owner in regard to the de-notified land, and therefore, a notification under Section 48(1) of LA Act cannot be withdrawn without hearing the concerned land owner — appeal — this Court held that if the cancellation notification is quashed as being violative of the principles of natural justice, it will result in the revival of the de-notification order that was also made in violation of the principles of natural justice, without hearing the affected party, that is, MUDA — both the notifications set aside and the state government is directed to consider the request of the land owners for withdrawal from acquisition afresh after giving due hearing to the land owners (and also the first respondent) and MUDA and decide the matter in accordance with law — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 228(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11023-11026 of 2010)
Sawaran Lata etc. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others Respondents, decided on 4/1/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 6 and 11 — respondents issued a notification under Section 4 for acquisition of a huge chunk of land and published it in 2 newspapers — declaration under Section 6 was also published in local newspapers immediately thereafter — theLand Acquisition Collector made an award and the respondents took possession of the land and removed the trees from the land of the petitioners — petitioners filed writ petitions for quashing the said notification and declaration — the High Court dismissed both the petitions on the ground of delay observing that the award under Section 11 of Act 1894 had already been made — appeal — whether the acquisition proceedings can be challenged at a belated stage — No — held it not to be the case of the petitioners that they had not been aware of acquisition proceedings as the very huge chunk of land belonging to large number of tenure holders had been notified for acquisition — petitions dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay of 172 days.

2010 SCCL.COM 264(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3838 of 2010 @ SLP(C) No. 20767 of 2008 With C.A. No. 3839/2010 [@ SLP(C) No. 21730/2008], C.A.Nos.3840-3841/2010 [@ SLP(C) Nos. 3971-3972/2009], C.A. No.3842/2010 [@ SLP(C) No. 31169/2008], C.A. No. 3843/2010 [@ SLP(C) No. 7293/2009], C.A. No.3844/2010 [@ SLP(C) No. 9875/2009],C.A. No.3845/2010 [@ SLP(C) No. 10393/2009], C.A. No.3848/2010 [@ SLP(C) No. 15773/2009], C.A.No.3849/2010 [@ SLP(C) No. 19684/2009] and C.A. Nos.3850-63/2010 [@ SLP(C) No. 31096-31109/2009].)
Special Land Acquisition Officer Appellant Vs. Karigowda and others Respondents, decided on 4/26/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23 — computation of compensation — the respondents were the owner of the lands which got submerged under the backwaters of Tonnur tank in the year 1993 due to construction of Hemavathi Dam — the Special Land AcquisitionOfficer (SLAO) fixed the market value of the wet lands at the rate of Rs.90,640/- per acre and for dry land at the rate of Rs. 37,200/- with statutory benefits — the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,92,500/- per acre for the wet lands (garden land). Rs.1,46,250/- for dry land (lightly irrigated) and Rs.1,20,000/- for dry land (without mulberry crop) . However, the High Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre for wet/garden land (in other cases) Rs.2,53,750/- per acre for dry lands — appeal — whether, manufacturing or commercial activity carried on by the agriculturist, either himself or by using the yield for production of some other final product can be the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land — it is only the direct agricultural crop produced by the agriculturist from the acquired land and not the consequential or remote benefits occurring from an agricultural activity that is a relevant consideration for determination of the fair market value on the date of the Notification — this Court held that the manufacturing of silk thread does not include growing of mulberry crop and thus, is only an agricultural activity and the entire remaining process cannot impliedly or by inference be termed as agricultural activity or an activity directly connected to agriculture — the compensation computed by the SLAO was on the basis of the sale instances of the villages falling within the same Circle as well as on the basis of the guidance value maintained in the Register of the Sub-Registrar of the concerned villages — held that the claimants have not only lost their agricultural land but they have also been deprived of seasonal income that was available to them as a result of sale of mulberry leaves, thus awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,30,000/- per acre for the wet/garden land and at the rate of Rs.1,53,400/- per acre for the dry land to the claimants — impugned orders of the High Court and of the Reference Court set aside — appeals partly allowed — directions issued.

2010 SCCL.COM 296(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1588 and 1589 of 2008)
R. Hanumaiah and another Appellants Vs. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department and others Respondents,decided on 2/24/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 — Section 67 — declaration of title of the suit property — the City Improvement Trusts Board (predecessor of Bangalore Development Authority) attempted to interfere with the appellants possession of Maistry Tank, the appellants filed suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction — the High Court dismissed the suit and held that the appellants had neither made out title nor possession in respect of the suit properties — appeal — whether the appellants who filed the suit for declaration of title against the government, have made out their title or possession to the suit properties — no — the Land Acquisition reference proceedings does not related to survey nos. 30 and 31 — the revenue records showed the two survey numbers as ‘Government tank’ and ‘Government barren land’ and the names of appellants are not entered as owners in the revenue records — held that when a tank enumerated in the Tank register maintained by the government, adds to the description of the tank, by the word ‘private’, it merely shows that the tank in question had been constructed by a private individual but it does not lead to the inference that the land on which the tank is constructed belonged to a private individual. Unless the title to the land on which the tank is situated is established, the mere fact that the tank was shown to have been maintained or repaired by any private individual will not make him the owner of the tank — the appellants produced no document to show that the tank was used, maintained or repaired by the appellants or their predecessors during more than half a century before the filing of the suit — no interference with the judgement and decree of the High Court — appeals dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 339(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2255 of 2006)
May George Appellant Vs. Special Tahsildar and others Respondents, decided on 5/25/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 6 — notification and declaration issued for acquisition covering the area to the extent of 30.80 acres — award under Section 11 was made in respect of entire land — appellant claimed that she had never been aware of the acquisition proceedings and she was not served with notice under section 9(3) of the Act — appellant approached the High Court challenging the Award which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, the Division Bench gave liberty to the appellant to move an application for making reference under section 18 and further directions to the Collector to make the reference and further to the Tribunal to decide the same within the stipulated period — appeal — once, Award was made and possession had been taken, land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested even if some irregularity is found in the Award — whether the provisions of Section 9(3) are mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof, would vitiate the Award and subsequent proceedings under the Act — no — the writ Court was fully satisfied that notice had been affixed on the land, satisfying the requirement of law and the Award had been made within limitation. The acquisition proceedings/Award have been challenged at a belated stage after a decade of taking possession of the land in dispute, thus, difficult to presume that appellant had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 389(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4988-5053 of 2010 Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25319-25378 of 2004, 23075-23078 of 2005, 12386 of 2006 and 1801 of 2007) With C.A. Nos. 5054, 5055, 5056, 5057, 5058, 5059, 5060, 5061, 5062, 5063, 5064, 5065, 5066, 5067, 5068 & 5069 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18518/2005, 18522/2005, 18523/2005, 18521/2005, 18519/2005, 18525/2005, 18526/2005, 18524/2005, 18528/2005, 20027/2005, 20029/2005, 19786/2005, 19787/2005, 19788/2005, 23003/2005, 22773/2005) With (SLP…….(CC) Nos.4641 of 2005, 4646 of 2005 and SLP (CC) No.5375 of 2005) With (SLP …….(CC) Nos.5505, 5521, 5831, 5835, 5853, 5841, 5899 and 5923 of 2005) With (SLP (C) No.9504/2005, SLP (C) No.25015/2005, SLP…..(CC) No.5402/2005, SLP (C) No.241/2006, SLP(C)No.20021/2005, SLP(C)No.20023/2005, SLP(C) No.20022/2005, SLP (C) No.20024/2005))
Land Acqn. Officer & Asstt. Commnr. and another Appellants Vs. Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur and others Respondents, decided on7/7/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition — the State of Karnataka is directed to pay interest on the amounts of solatium — C.A.1 — the possession of the land coming under acquisition was taken over by the State even before the issuance of the preliminary notification. The Land AcquisitionOfficer gave his award fixing compensation @ Rs. 20,000/- per acre which were enhanced to Rs. 60,000/- per acre by the civil court, while, the High Court further enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 78,000/- per acre — the land owners filed execution petition — the appellants contended that in cases where full payments were made in terms of the decree and the execution proceedings were consequently closed, the proceedings could not be re-opened and directions given for payment of interest — this Court held that the appeal being the continuation of the original proceeding, the High Court enhanced the rate of compensation which would inevitably lead to an increase in the amount of solatium and consequently in the amount of interest on the unpaid amount of solatium — C.A.2 — this Court directed the petitioner to pay to the respective respondents/land owners the balance amounts of interest on solatium that remain unpaid from 2002 to 11.9.2005 — C.A.3 — delay condoned — held that in case of any grievance in regard to calculations, it will be open to the petitioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer to raise his objections, if otherwise permissible in law — C.A.4 — claim for interest on solatium — the civil court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands from Rs. 21,500/- per acre to Rs. 50,000/- per acre but rejected the land owner’s claim for interest on solatium — the appeal, when it was filed, was barred by limitation by 1072 days therefore, dismissed and the subsequent review petitions also dismissed by the civil court. However, the Division Bench allowed all the revision petitions of the claimants — this Court held that the order passed by the civil court, dismissing the review petition was wholly in accordance with the law and the High Court order, reversing the order of the civil court and allowing the claim of the respondents is untenable, thus, set aside — appeals allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 426(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5882 of 2010)
Dahyabhai Ranchhoddas Dhobi and another Appellant(s) Vs. State of Gujarat and others Respondent(s), decided on 7/23/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 6 and 11A — the State of Gujarat initiated acquisition proceedings for construction of a school in the land under the Surat Municipal Corporation — the appellants objected the said acquisition — the notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 was published in the official Gazette. Public Notice displayed at the office of Mamlatdar of the concerned Ward and the appellants were given several opportunities for hearing their objections from time to time — the notification under Section 6 was last published on 19.04.1990 and, therefore, the publication of the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 18.04.1992 was within the stipulated time limit of two years — as the land in question is kept under reservation for school in the sanctioned development plan for the State Government under Section 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, it is the duty of the Corporation to acquire the land for implementing the provisions of the same — held no interference with the stand taken by the State as well as the conclusion arrived at by the High Court — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 459(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 2523 of 2008 with C.A. Nos. 2517, 2518, 2519, 2524, 2525, 2561, 2703, 2724, 2731 of 2008 )
Anand Singh and another Appellant(s) Vs. State of U.P. and others Respondent(s), decided on 7/28/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 17 and 48(1) — invocation of urgency clause and dispensation of the enquiry u/sec. 5A — whether the impugned notifications dated November 22, 2003/February 20, 2004 invoking urgency clause and dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A for the public purpose viz., `development of residential colony’ are legal and valid and whether the appellants are entitled to any relief — no material has been placed on record by the State Government either before the High Court or before this Court indicating the application of mind that the urgency was of such nature which warranted elimination of the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act — this court observed that If the matter could hang on from April, 2001 to November 22, 2003/February 20, 2004 before the notifications under Section 4 were issued and for about a year thereafter in issuance of declaration under Section 6, acquisition proceedings could have been arranged in a manner so as to enable the land owners and/or the interested persons to file their objections under Section 5A within the prescribed time — subsequent to the declaration made under Section 6, award has been made and out of the 400 land owners more than 370 have already received compensation. Further, an amount of Rs. 5,28,00,000/- has already been spent by the GDA and more than 60% of work has been completed, therefore, held that the appellants are not entitled to any relief although dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A was not justified. However, this court granted liberty to the appellants to make appropriate representation to the State Government u/sec. 48(1) for release of their land — appeals dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 477(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.940 of 2004)
Chaturbhuja Modi and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Orissa and another Respondent(s), decided on 8/11/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — acquisition proceedings — appeal filed — for enhancement of compensation — the Land AcquisitionOfficer assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per acre, however, the reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre — the appellants-claimants being dissatisfied with the determination of compensation, filed an appeal before the High Court, claiming a higher compensation. The High Court enhanced the compensation for the acquired land to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre and also held that the appellants should be entitled to other statutory benefits as available under the Act — this court found that under the said notification, another small piece of land was also sold for Rs.5,50,000/- per acre. However, the said value cannot be assessed as the value of the acquired land for the reason that the said land which is sold is a very small piece of land, whereas the acquired land being a large tract of land — held that where the market-value of large block of land is determined on the basis of sale transactions for smaller property, appropriate deduction has to be made for making allowance for the loss of the acquired land required to be used for internal development — no interference with the impugned order of the High Court — appeal dismissed — no cost.

2010 SCCL.COM 481(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.36 of 2004)
A. Natesam Pillai Appellant(s) Vs. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy Respondent(s), decided on 8/11/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4(1) and 18 — acquisition proceedings — fixation of market value of the acquired land — the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.1.72 per sq. ft. for the acquired land — reference was made — the Reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.17/- per sq. feet, however, the High Court reversed the order passed by the Reference Court by reducing the amount of compensation granted by the Reference Court to the appellant from Rs. 17/- per sq. feet to Rs. 9/- per sq. feet — appeal — whether the High Court was correct and justified in scaling down the compensation to be given to the appellant — no — the fact not disputed that the acquired land has all the potentiality to be used as building sites, even in the immediate future, as it is located at a place in and around which building activity has already started. The acquired land is abutting the main road and is also surrounded by schools, Panchayat union office, shops and residential building in all three sides — Even on giving a discount in respect of the acquired land being a large tract as compared to the small portion of land sold, this court held that the appellant shall be entitled to compensation at Rs. 11/- per sq. ft. for the acquired land with additional compensation and solatium including payment of interest in terms of the rate of interest awarded by the Reference Court — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 554(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.6811 of 2010)
Rajinder Kishan Gupta and another Appellants Vs. Union of India and others Respondent(s), decided on 8/20/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4 r/w sec. 17(1)(4) — acquisition proceedings — challenged — a vast extent of agricultural lands in Delhi were sought to be acquired. The said acquisition was challenged and was dismissed by the High Court. This Court directed maintenance of status quo in respect of possession of land in question. Subsequently, at the instance of the DMRC, the limited status quo order was clarified to the effect that DMRC is free to proceed with the fresh acquisition in accordance with law. Pursuant to the same, fresh notification was published seeking to acquire the land of the appellants — the entire acquisition proceedings was challenged by the High Court — dismissed — appeal — when the acquisition of the land is for DMRC and when there is a specific Act, namely, the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 whether the authorities are justified in invoking the urgency provision in the Land Acquisition Act by dispensing enquiry under Section 5A of the said Act — when Government land adjoining to the land in question is available, whether acquisition of a private land belonging to the appellants is justifiable — held yes — no specific prohibition in the Metro Railways Act from applying the Land Acquisition Act to acquire any land for a public purpose, more particularly, for the construction works relating to metro railways in the metropolitan cities — nowhere in the affidavit the appellants have specified the details regarding their holdings such as khasra No., extent, ownership details with reference to revenue records — this court found that the existence of public purpose and urgency in executing the project before the Common Wealth Games, the adjoining land belonging to DDA being forest land as per the notification and the respondents have fully complied with the mandatory requirements including deposit of 80 per cent of the compensation amount — appeal dismissed — no cost.

2010 SCCL.COM 556(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.546 of 2004)
Sudam Shankar Kshirsagar and another Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Respondent(s), decided on 8/30/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 — section 2(8) — ‘holding’ — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4(1) — legality of the notification under — in challenge — the appellants contended that each member of the family who has attained the age of majority is entitled to hold independent land. Therefore, each one of them would be entitled to retain his share in the joint family property and if after such calculation, there is any excess land, such land could only be acquired in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 read with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act — the High Court held that the expression “person” occurring in the definition of “holding” under Section 2(8) of the Act of 1986 cannot be restricted solely to natural persons or juristic persons and that the expression “person” would include any company or association or body of individuals. Further held that once Hindu Joint Family is held to be a person, the limit prescribed in Schedule-II has to be seen in the light of the holding of the person, i.e., holding of the Hindu Joint Family and not as holding of individual coparceners — appeal — this court upheld the findings of the High Court — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 568(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.3677 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No.3674 of 2010 with S.L.P.(C)…CC No.10008 & 10015 of 2009, SLP(C) No.10191 of 2008, IA Nos. 1-2 In & S.L.P.(C)…CC No. 10193 of 2009, S.L.P.(C)…CC No.10239 of 2009, S.L.P.(C)…CC No.10350 of 2009, S.L.P.(C)…CC No.10429 of 2009, S.L.P.(C)…CC No.10431 of 2009, S.L.P.(C)…CC No.10521 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 11303-11312 of 2008, SLP(C) No.12240 of 2010, SLP(C) No.1318 of 2010, SLP(C) No.14151 of 2008, SLP(C) No.14363 of 2009, SLP(C) No.14514 of 2009, SLP(C) No.14515 of 2009, SLP(C) No.14523 of 2009, SLP(C) No.14946 of 2009, SLP(C) No.15007 of 2009, SLP(C) No.15041 of 2009, SLP(C) No.15099 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 15100 of 2009, SLP(C) No.15356 of 2009, SLP(C) No.15593 of 2009, SLP(C) No.16088 of 2008, SLP(C) No. 16359 of 2008, SLP(C) No.16676 of 2009, SLP(C) No.16694 of 2009, SLP(C) No.16861 of 2008, SLP(C) No.17005 of 2009, SLP(C) No.17068 of 2009, SLP(C) No.17111 of 2008, SLP(C) No.17175 of 2009, SLP(C) No.17736 of 2008, SLP(C) No.18107 of 2009, SLP(C) No.18168 of 2008, SLP(C) No.18314 of 2008, SLP(C) No.19934 of 2008, SLP(C) No.19938 of 2008, SLP(C) No.20147 of 2009, SLP(C) No.22751 of 2009, SLP(C) No.23350 of 2009, SLP(C) No.23357 of 2009, SLP(C) No.23926 of 2008, SLP(C) No.31649 of 2009, SLP(C) No.31689-31701 of 2009, SLP(C) No.31838 of 2009, SLP(C) No.33116 of 2009, SLP(C) No.35055-35058 of 2009, SLP(C) No.4663 of 2010, SLP(C) No.5537 of 2008, S.L.P.(C)…CC No.6825-6831 of 2008, S.L.P.(C)…CC No.9252 of 2009, S.L.P.(C)…CC No.9310 of 2009, IA Nos.1-5 IN & SLP(C) No.9743 of 2010, SLP(C) No.9751 of 2008, SLP(C) No.9977 of 2008)
Udho Dass and others Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others Respondent(s), decided on 4/21/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4, 6 and 18 — certain lands notified for acquisition — determination of the compensation — the collector rendered his award of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre as compensation for the entire land. The reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs.125/- per sq. yard for the land on the left side of the Sonepat Bahalgarh road and Rs.150/- per square yard on the right side abutting the aforesaid road — the High Court further enhanced the compensation from Rs.125/- to Rs.135/- for land on the left side and to Rs.160/- from Rs.150/- on the right side on the principle applied by the Reference Court — appeal — the compensation for the acquisition not decided even after 17 years from the date of Notification and 14 years from the date of the award of the Collector on which date the possession of the land must have been taken from the landowner, thus, the payment of compensation has been spread over almost two decades — this court found that the land acquired share a common boundary behind the ECE factory, therefore, the belting system not permissible — a compensation of Rs.225/- per square yard were awarded for the entire acquired land and further directed that the appellants be entitled to all statutory benefits — appeals allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 590(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos.730 of 2004 with C.A. Nos. 737, 738, 739-746 & 747-752 of 2004)
K. K. Poonacha Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka and others Respondent(s), decided on 9/7/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 — sections 35 and 36 — acquisition of land under — whether the 1976 Act is liable to be declared void on the ground that the same was not reserved for the consideration of the President and did not receive his assent as per the requirement of Article 31(3) of the Constitution — the appellants have not questioned constitutionality of the 1976 Act on the ground that it is beyond legislative competence of the State or violates any of their rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or any other provision of the Constitution or violates the mandate of Article 31(2) of the Constitution — this Court held that if a post-Constitution law is within the legislative competence of the Union or State and does not infringe any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, then the same cannot be declared void on the ground of non compliance of the procedural requirement of prior recommendation or sanction, if assent is given in the manner provided under Article 255 of the Constitution. Therefore, the 1976 Act cannot be declared unconstitutional or void only on the ground that the same was not reserved for consideration of the President and did not receive his assent — the 1976 Act was enacted for the development of the city of Bangalore and the area adjacent thereto and it contains incidental provisions in Sections 35 and 36 for acquisition of land — appeals dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 609(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Civil) No.242 of 1988 with Writ Petition (C) No. 408 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos.1344-1345 of 1976)
Glanrock Estates Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner(s) Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Respondent(s), decided on 9/9/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble The Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: S.H. Kapadia, CJI: Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974 — constitutional validity — to examine — what is the scope of immunity to laws inserted in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution read with Article 31B? — whether the Tamil Nadu State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969)? — whether the Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969) could not be applied because of the Ceiling Act (Act 20 of 1972)? — after Act 20 of 1972 forests which earlier stood exempted from the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1961 got included in the Ceiling Act (Act 20 of 1972). Therefore, the holder was entitled to hold the lands subject to ceiling including forests under the Ceiling Act (Act 20 of 1972) whereas forests falling in Janmam estate vested in the State — this court that the doctrine of classification under Article 14 has several facets and none of those facets have been abrogated by the Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974 — the Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969) is a piece of legislation for abolishing feudal tenure and is a measure of land reform . Even if there was no public purpose in the acquisition of forests, the requirement of public purpose and compensation are not legislative requirements of the competence of Legislature to make laws under Entry 18, List II or Entry 42, List III, but are conditions or restrictions under Article 31(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, when the Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969) was put in the Ninth Schedule in 1974, the Act received immunity from Article 31(2) with retrospective effect — the Janmam Act was enacted to acquire the rights of janmis in Janmam estates in Gudalur taluk and to introduce ryotwari settlement, whereas the object behind enactment of the Ceiling Act (Act 20 of 1972) was to fix a ceiling on the land holdings and to distribute the excess lands to the landless and agricultural population. Therefore, the scope and ambit of the two Acts are completely different and they operate in different spheres — the Janmam Act stood validated by its insertion in the Ninth Schedule vide Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974. — appeals dismissed — no costs. K.S. Radhakrishnan, J: Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974 — validity of — in challenge — by which the Janmam Act was included in the 9th Schedule under Article 31-B of the Constitution — whether the vesting of private forest in the State, by virtue of Section 3 of the Janmam Act, violates any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Part III of the Constitution and, whether that provision abrogates or destroys the basic structure of the Constitution — violation of fundamental right, may not, ipso facto, violate the basic structure doctrine, but a law which violates the basic structure invariably violates some of the rights guaranteed under Part III, but not vice versa. A law which infringes a basic feature of the Constitution cannot be validated under Article 31B, by inserting it in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution — right not to be deprived of property, save by authority of law is no longer a fundamental right but only a constitutional right which has never been treated as part of the basic structure of the Constitution — appeals dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 616(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.6515 of 2010 with Civil Appeal Nos.6561, 6516, 6528, 6531, 6529, 6526, 6552, 6567, 6535, 6836, 6560, 6571, 6530, 6525, 6527, 6570, 6546, 6565, 6548, 6550, 6563, 6537, 6532, 6569, 6534, 6559, 6572, 6583, 6580, 6573, 6584, 6588, 6590, 6575, 6823, 6853, 6855, 6554, 6566, 6557, 6533, 6558, 6541, 6556, 6562, 6568, 6564, 6539, 6538, 6553, 6540, 6852, 6576, 6587, 6582, 6581, 6577, 6574, 6585, 6578, 6579, 6854, 6666­6667, 6757, 6747 6755, 6831, 6756, 6591, 6651, 6606, 6592, 6658, 6594, 6595, 6650, 6657, 6655, 6596, 6597, 6620, 6621, 6602, 6603, 6622, 6598, 6624, 6647, 6654, 6599, 6607, 6608, 6623, 6609, 6600, 6601, 66..49, 6593, 6605, 6610, 6611, 6612, 6653, 6613, 6642, 6652, 6643, 6614, 6659, 6645, 6648, 6656, 6646, 6626, 6615, 6616, 6644, 6625, 6639, 6636, 6637, 6627, 6631, 6628, 6638, 6641, 6629, 6630, 6619, 6635, 6640, 6632, 6633, 6824-6827, 6664-6665, 7724, 7725, 7723 OF 2009, 6871-6875, 6876-6878, 53, 1370, 2475, 4212, 4213, 4214,4215,4218, 4220, 4221, 4222, 4224, 4225, 4226, 4227, 4228, 4223, 4229, 4230, 4231/0, 4232, 4233, 4234, 6879, 6880, 6881, 6882, 6883 , 6884, 6885­6888, 6889, 6890, 6891, 6892, 6893, 6894, 6895, 6896, 6897, 6898, 6899, 6900, 6901, 6902, 6903, 6904, 6905, 6906, 6907, 6908, 6909, 6910, 6911, 6912, 6913, 6914, 6915, 6916, 6917, 6918, 6919, 6920, 6921, 6922, 6923, 6924 of 2010, 6925, 6926, 6927, 6928, 6929, 6930, 6931, 9932, 6933, 6934, 6935, 6936, 6937, 6938, 6939, 6940, 6941, 6942, 6943, 6944, 6945, 6946, 6947, 6948, 6949, 6950, 6951, 6952, 6953, 6954, 6955, 6956, 6957, 6958, 6959 , 6960, 6961, 6962, 6963, 6964, 6965, 6966, 6967, 6968, 969, 6970, 6971, 6972, 6973, 6974, 6975, 6976, 6977, 6978, 6979, 6980, 6981, 6982, 6983, 6984, 6985, 6986, 6988, 6989, 6990, 6991, 6992, 6993, 6994, 6995, 6996-6997, 7002, 7003, 7004, 7005, 7006, 7007, 7008, 7009, 7010, 7011, 7012, 7013, 7014, 7015, 7016, 7017, 7018, 7019, 7020, 7021, 7022, 7023, 7024, 7025, 7026, 7027, 7028, 7029, 7030, 7031, 7032, 7033, 7034, 7035, 7036, 703737, 7038, 039, 7040, 7041, 7042, 7043, 7044, 7045, 7046, 7047, 7048 of 2010)
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Appellants Vs. Pran Sukh and Others Respondents, decided on 8/17/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — acquisition of land — fixation of market value — the sale transaction was between two corporate entities and the entire sale price was paid through bank drafts — the learned Single Judge did not approve division of the land in two blocks by observing that when huge chunk of land was acquired for setting up an industrial model township, there could be no valid ground to divide the land in different blocks or classes — the Corporation and the State Government did not adduce any evidence to prove that the land sold was over valued with an oblique motive of helping the land owners to claim higher compensation — this court concluded that the land was acquired for setting up an Industrial Model Township at Manesar and after developing the land, the Corporation was bound to sell the plots at much higher price to the existing or prospective industrial entrepreneurs, thus, the appellants-Corporation were directed to pay market value of the entire acquired land at the rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre with all statutory benefits — appeals disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 632(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.1745-1753 of 2004)
Pralhad and others Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra and another Respondents, decided on 9/15/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, J..
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4, 18 and 23(1A) — acquisition proceedings — CPC, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 33 — application under — for additional compensation — the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.13,000/- per acre, with solatium at the rate of 30% as per the amendment and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of possession — both the parties challenged the said orders — the High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to award additional benefits under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while confirming the award of the Reference Court — appeals — whether the landowners, without filing an appeal before the High Court from the order of the Reference Court, are entitled to the aforesaid benefit on the basis of their application under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC — yes — this court held that the acquisition proceeding commenced with notification under Section 4 which is dated 5.3.1983 and the award was passed on 1.3.1984. Therefore, the landowners who were affected by the instant acquisition proceeding were entitled to the benefit of the amending provision under Section 23(1A) — appeals allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 642(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.9596 of 2003)
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Appellants Vs. Ram Chandra Agarwal and others Respondents, decided on 9/21/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, J..
Subject Index: Uttar Pradesh Avas Avam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 — sections 29, 32 — acquisition of a huge chunk of land — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 18, 23(1-A) — the Reference Tribunal passed an award whereby market value of the acquired land was substantially enhanced. For the next about 20 years, the Housing Commissioner of the appellant, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) exchanged correspondence on the issue of payment of additional compensation to the respondent. However, as the amount was not paid to the respondent, he filed Writ Petition — the High Court gave direction to the Housing Commissioner to provide funds for payment of additional compensation to the respondent with a further direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass appropriate order for payment of such compensation — appeal — the High Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding the entitlement of respondent No.1 to get additional compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the Act as amended in 1984 — the impugned order set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the writ petition filed by the respondent — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 639(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.8590 of 2003 with Civil Appeal No.9158, 9161 and 9162 of 2003)
Jaipur Development Authority Appellant Vs. Mahesh Sharma and another Respondents, decided on 9/21/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, J..
Subject Index: Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act — section 48 — deacquisition of the land — notice for — despite of vesting of the land on the State Government by virtue of the provisions of Jagir Act and despite the payment of interim compensation under Jagir Act, an Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer determining a sum of Rs. 2,62,680/- as compensation in lieu of the acquisition of the land and also recommended allotment of developed plot of land measuring 2,500 sq. yds. to be given to the respondent — the Government of Rajasthan issued an order deacquiring the land stating that the possession of the land in question stood resumed on the day under the Jagir Act — the respondent preferred an application before the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation amount, which was rejected — the respondent preferred writ petition — the High Court while allowing the writ petition quashed the Notification issued by the State Government under Section 48 with a further direction to the State Government to deposit the compensation amount in the trial court and also to allot a plot of land of 2500 sq. yds. — appeals — on the one hand, a Government officer of the status of Land Acquisition Officer, while performing a public duty has sought to make an illegal acquisition of land and also making illegal allotment of land, on the other hand it is a trustee and the Manager who has abused his position and has, following the trust reposed on him, sought to fritter away a property belonging to the Idol — this court held that the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 as also the Award passed for acquisition of the land was a nullity and the subsequent action of the Government de-requisitioning land by issuance of notification under Section 48 was just and proper as that was an action for rectification of the mistake, therefore, the Respondents have no claim or right to a fresh allotment of land, as directed by the Land Acquisition Officer — appeals allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 645(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.7468 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No.7469 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2010)
Nand Kishore Gupta and others Appellants Vs. State of U.P. and others Respondents with J.S. Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. Appellant with Balbir Singh and another Appellants, decided on 9/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph, J..
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4(1), 6, 17(1) & 17(4) — notification under — in challenge — the land owners filed writ petition seeking for directions not to give effect to the notifications issued and further not to dispossess the landholders/ petitioners after demolishing their constructions on the lands which were proposed to be acquired for Yamuna Expressway Project — while dismissing the petitions, the High Court pointed out that out of 12,282 land owners, 11,397 had already received their compensation under the agreement — appeal — whether the challenge posed by the appellants about this acquisition not being for public purpose is justified or not — the acquisition was for building up a highway and the alignment of the highway cannot be changed, as its design has been prepared after consideration of so many factors by the experts in building the road. Moreover, the majority of the land owners have parted with possession, taken the compensation and thus, the whole scheme has progressed to a substantial level — initially the award was preceded by issuance of an advertisement in the leading newspapers throughout the country. Offers were invited on the basis of a global tender and 19 parties entered the fray, thereafter the respondent Company was chosen for the award of the tender, thus, there was a full transparency in the whole process and the whole process was checked, rechecked and re-rechecked, leaving no scope to infer any bias in favour of the Company — held that it is not a case where the power of exercise was exercised by the State Government so that the acquired land was to belong or vest permanently in the Company for its own purpose. Further the implementation of the Project would result in coming into existence of five developed parcels/centers in the State for the use of the citizens — this court observed that there was material before the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A as there was necessity in this Project considering the various reasons like enormousness of the Project, likelihood of the encroachments, number of appellants who would have required to be heard and the time taken for that purpose, and the fact that the Project had lingered already from 2001 till 2008 — appeals dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 669(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos.1760-1761 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos. 6875-6877 of 2004 and Civil Appeal No. 7434 of 2004)
Iyasamy and another Appellants Vs. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Respondent, decided on 9/30/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, J..
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 23(1A), 23(2) — additional compensation and interest on solatium — determination of the valuation of acquired lands — the appellants not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, filed petition before the Reference Court — the Reference Court enhanced the compensation and fixed it at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. ft — the High Court in its impugned judgment and order enhanced the market value of the land to Rs. 9/- per sq. ft., and deducted 33-1/3% towards development charges and ultimately the compensation was fixed at Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. The High Court also rejected the claim of interest on solatium u/s 23 (2) and additional compensation u/s 23(1A) of the Act — appeal — no interference with the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court, however, this court held that the appellants would entitle to receive interest on solatium under section 23 (2) and additional compensation under Section 23 (1A) of the Act — appeal partly allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 672(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.7655 of 2004)
V. Ramakrishna Rao Appellant(s) Vs. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., & another Respondent(s), decided on 10/5/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 28A(3) — re-determination of the amount of compensation — whether the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) for making a reference to the Court was maintainable and the High Court committed an error by quashing the proceedings — acquisition proceedings held — the Reference Court fixed market value of the two categories of land at Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per acre respectively — the appeals filed against the order of the Reference Court were pending before the High Court. In the meantime, the appellant who had not invoked Section 18 of the Act filed an application under Section 28A(1) for payment of enhanced compensation at par with other land owners — allowed — the appellant filed an application under Section 28A(3) of the Act for making a reference to the Court for fixing the fair market value of the acquired land — the respondent No.1 filed writ petition which was dismissed by the ld. Single Judge. However, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and held that a person who gets benefit of higher compensation under Section 28A(1) cannot file an application under Section 28A(3) — appeal — this court held that the appellant cannot be denied right to seek determination of fair market value which has to be at least at par with market value fixed by the Reference Court. The mere fact that the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) remained pending for more than 9 years cannot be made a ground to deprive the appellant of his legitimate right to seek further enhancement in the amount of compensation — impugned judgement of the Division Bench set aside — application filed u/sec. 28A(3) maintainable — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 675(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos.4212-4223 of 2004)
A.P. Housing Board Appellant Vs. K. Manohar Reddy and others Respondents, decided on 9/30/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, J..
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4,6,18,23(1A) & 23(2) — fixation of the market value of the acquired land — the Reference court fixed the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 50/- per square yard and also awarded 30 per cent solatium on the market value and a further sum of 12 per cent additional market value in terms of the Section 23(1)(A) of the Act. However, the High Court held that the respondents-claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square yard for the acquired lands after deducting 1/3rd from the said amount, along with other benefits as awarded by the Civil Court — hence, the appeals — the evidence on record showed that the land is agricultural land and therefore would require extensive development to be utilised as a residential site — the High Court interfered with the rate of market value fixed by the reference court and raised it to Rs. 75/- per square yard from Rs. 50/- per square yard. However, no cogent reason given for increasing the aforesaid rate from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 75/- — the sale deeds were executed in proximity to the date of acquisition, therefore, such an increase without any supporting reasons cannot be said to be valid and legal — this court fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 50/- per square yard as on the date of the notification and direct that 1/3rd of the awarded amount shall be deducted from the aforesaid valuation towards development charges — appeals allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 681(Case/Appeal No: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8431 OF 2010 with CIVIL APPEAL No. 8432 OF 2010)
Amarjit Singh & others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Punjab and others Respondent(s), decided on 9/29/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha & Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 6, 23(1) – Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 – constitutional validity of — under challenge — Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 — Section 178(2) – exemption notification under—acquisition proceedings held — while a majority of the land owners did not find fault with the proceedings, some of the owners representing around 10% of the total area notified for acquisition, questioned the same — the High Court upheld not only the constitutional validity of the impugned enactments but also the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act — appeal — whether the exemption of the land under acquisition from the provisions of Section 14 and Chapters VIII, X and XII of the Act, 1995 in terms of notification issued under Section 178(2) of the said Act suffers from any legal infirmity - no - whether the acquisition under challenge is rendered bad for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act aforementioned - no - whether the absence of any rehabilitation measures renders the acquisition in question legally bad. If not, whether the `Land Pooling Scheme’ can be made applicable to the acquisition of the land acquired from the appellants. The notification granting exemption was never challenged in the writ petitions filed by the appellants — the Government decided to invoke its powers U/sec. 178(2) as the compliance with the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 was found to be impracticable primarily because of the tremendous pressure on land in and around Mohali for housing purposes especially because the township has witnessed phenomenal growth over the years. Thus, the Government issued exemption notification and prevented such haphazard and unplanned development — the ‘Land Pooling Scheme’ envisages a kind of public-private partnership in the development of areas involving acquisition of large extents of land which can be done only when an acquisition is tailored according to the scheme, therefore, the scheme cannot be introduced after the acquisition and even allotment process is over — appeals dismissed – no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 698(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No (s). 7664-7675 of 2004)
State of Karnataka & Others. Appellant(s) Vs. Munikadirappa & Others. Respondent(s), decided on 10/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon’ble Dr. Justice T. S. Thakur .
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — determination of the Compensation — occupancy rights — granted in favour of the respondents — by the Land Tribunal — challenged — while the writ petition was still pending the lands in question were acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority — the High Court concluded that the Land Tribunal was right in holding that the respondents were cultivating the land in question as tenants and in granting occupancy rights to them. Further, taking note of the fact that the lands in question stood acquired the learned Single Judge directed that compensation payable for the lands in question shall be apportioned between the petitioners-erstwhile owner and the tenants-occupants. However, the Division Bench held that since the respondents were found to be in cultivating occupation of the land on the appointed date, they shall be deemed to be so even on the date of acquisition and that they shall be entitled to claim full compensation payable for the land acquired from them — appeals — this Court held that while grant of occupancy-tenancy rights in favour of the respondents qua the parcels of land in their respective possession as on the appointed date shall stand affirmed, the question as to who is entitled to what compensation for the acquisition of said lands in question is left open to be determined in appropriate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — appeals disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 715(Case/Appeal No: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8986-9012 of 2010 With C.A. Nos. 9013-9025, 9026-9058, 9074-9101,of 2010)
M/s. Gurugobind Singh Refineries Ltd. Appellant(s) Vs. Punjab State & others Etc. Etc. Respondent(s), decided on 10/20/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4 r/w section 17, sections 6 and 18 — notification and declaration under — for acquisition of land — fixation of market value of the acquired lands — in challenge — the Government of Punjab acquired various parcels of land — the Land Acquisition Collector passed award for payment of compensation to the land owners. However, the Reference Court clubbed the land classified as Nehri/Chahi with Barani and tube well irrigated land and fixed market value thereof at Rs.3.50 lacs per acre — challenged — the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the valuation of the land and belting method adopted by the Reference Court but remanded the matter for reconsideration of the issue relating to categorization of the acquired land — appeal — this Court viewed that the Reference Court was not justified in deciding the issue relating to fixation of market value of the acquired land by presuming that irrigation facilities are available throughout the State of Punjab either through canals or through tube wells — the matter remanded to the Reference Court with the direction that it shall pass fresh award after giving opportunity to the parties to produce additional evidence on all the issues. Further held that the land owners shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the Company after furnishing appropriate security to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer of the Reference Court — appeals disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 721(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s).1385 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2004)
Chimanlal Kuberdas Modi (D) By Lrs. Appellant(s) Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corp. & others Respondent(s), decided on10/22/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 34 — payment of interest — whether or not the appellant would be entitled to payment of interest under Section 34 on the solatium on the compensation paid — section 4 and 6 — notification and declaration under — for acquisition of land — the land belonging to the appellant was acquired — the appellant filed an execution application for recovery of the balance amount as awarded by the Reference Court and also filed an application for payment of the amount of interest payable under Section 34 — the Executing Court issued a warrant to the respondent No.1 for recovery of balance amount and further interest. However, the High Court set aside the order of the Executing Court — appeal — the Reference Court in the decree has allowed the prayer for compensation towards the market value of the land as also solatium at the rate of 30% and also granted increase of 12% as also an increase in compensation in terms of Section 23(1A) — this Court held that since a direction is made for payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum and thereafter at 15% per annum in the decree, the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the interest on market value, which also includes solatium, thus, the executing court was justified to permit recovery of interest on solatium — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 740(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s).998 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No. 1024 of 2007 Civil Appeal No. 997 of 2007 Civil Appeal 6115 of 2007)
Omprakash Verma & others Appellant(s) Vs. State of A.P. & others Respondent(s), decided on 10/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Dr.Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — sections 8,9,and 10 — proceedings under — in relation to the possession of surplus land — under challenge — the petitioners filed petition claiming for grant of exemption under various G.Os. — dismissed by the High Court — appeal — whether the proceedings of the Competent Authority under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the ULC Act in relation to the land in Survey No. 83 declared by the Division Benches respectively, as void, stood restored — the lands in issue were not agricultural lands but were vacant lands under the ULC Act even in 1976 when the declaration was made by the owners under Section 6 of the ULC Act, hence the declaration and all action taken consequent thereto are valid in law — the proceedings under the ULC Act were not challenged by the owners at any stage as provided by the statute, thus, once vesting takes place under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act, the State has absolute title and ownership over it — this Court found that the determination of surplus land based on the declaration of owners has become final long back. The notifications issued under Section 10 of the Act and the panchanama taken possession are also final, therefore, the finding of the High Court that the possession was taken by the State legally and validly through a Panchnama upheld — held that the owners themselves have described the land in Survey No. 83 as “grazing lands” and “vacant land” in the relevant columns of their declaration under Section 6(1) and, therefore, the proceedings of the competent authority under Sections 8, 9 and 10 are valid. Further held the appellants cannot be allowed to take the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 733 since not merely the appellants were dispossessed but the property was transferred initially in favour of HUDA and later to APIC for utilizing the same to set up IT Park Project — appeals dismissed — no cost.

2010 SCCL.COM 755(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No (s).17-20 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2005)
D. Hanumanth Sa & others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Karnataka & others Respondent(s), decided on 10/27/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swatanter Kumar .
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4 and 6 — legality and the validity of the preliminary and final notifications — under challenge — the ld. Single Judge held that in the proceedings prepared by the State Government, the purpose of acquisition was stated to have a link road and in the final notification under Section 6 of the Act, the purpose of acquisition having been shown as completely different, the entire purpose was not justified and tenable thus, quashed the said notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the Division Bench set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge holding that the acquisition for the land was for a public purpose — hence, the appeals — the land which was sought to be acquired figured in a comprehensive plan for construction of a road as also workshop and residential building of the staff of KSRTC — this Court held that the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired is definitely of a public character and therefore, the respondent-State Government,is fully competent to issue such a notification under Section 4 as also under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Further, opined that it cannot be said that the land which stood acquired under the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act are in any manner connected with the notifications issued by State Government for Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board for Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project and even assuming a part of the said land sought to be acquired for a different purpose to that extent, the same cannot be said to be a proper acquisition as the land already stands acquired under a different notification issued by a separate authority under separate provisions of law — appeals dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 768(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s).5616 of 2004 With Civil Appeal No. 5628 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 5732 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 8818 of 2004)
Radha Mudaliyar Appellant with Dhanapooshanam Appellant withN. Thananchayan Appellant with K. Gomathi & others Appellants Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), T.N.H. Board Respondent, decided on 10/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr.Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr.Justice Swatanter Kumar .
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act,1894 — sections 23 (1) A and 34 B — consequential benefits under — acquisition of land — the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at different rates which were received by the appellants under protest — the Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants. However, the High Court reduced the compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of ` 2018/- per cent — appeal — whether the claimants would be entitled to receive the compensation at this rate or certain element of deduction needs to be applied — the land has been acquired, which apparently was an agricultural land at the time of acquisition, to carry out the development scheme — this Court found that the High Court ignored in not awarding enhancement in the value of the land as it had come in evidence that there was increasing trend in the sale price of the land in that area. Further, the Reference Court fell in error in giving 40% increase for a short intervening period of ten months. Thus, examining the cumulative effect of the evidence on record in relation to location, potential and similarity of land, this Court after applying 30% deduction to the value (on account of size of the plot and development charges) held that claimants entitled to receive compensation at the rate of ` 2,800/- per cent for the acquired land with other consequential benefits and interest on solatium — appeal partly allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 773(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1757 of 2002)
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai Appellant(s) Vs. M. Meiyappan & others Respondent(s), decided on 10/29/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4(1), 6,7 — acquisition of disputed lands — challenged — the Government of Tamil Nadu approved the notification U/sec. 4(1) for acquisition of the disputed land. A declaration in terms of Section 6 of the Act was made and requisite direction under Section 7 of the Act was issued by the Government. The Award in relation to the said lands was made and the compensation was awarded. After taking possession of the lands in question, these were handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board — a writ petition was filed challenging the acquisition of lands — the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the judgment of the ld. Single Judge and set aside Notification published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette being a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 — appeal — this Court held that the writ petition must fail on the short ground that the writ petition had been filed 16 years after the award was announced by the Collector. The respondents did not furnish any explanation as to why it took them 16 years to challenge the acquisition of their lands, when they were aware of the acquisition of their lands and had in fact participated in these proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector — impugned judgement set aside — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 783(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7268 of 2004)
Mohanlal Nanabhai Choksi (D) By Lrs. Appellant(s) Vs. State of Gujarat & Others Respondent(s), decided on 10/4/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963 — applicability of — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 — section 78 — acquisition proceedings under — for setting up of a vegetable market — non-applicability of BPMC Act, to initiate an acquisition by the State for establishment of a vegetable market in the context of enactment of a later and a special Act, namely, the 1963 Act — under challenge — the Gujarat High Court allowed the acquisition of the lands of the appellants for setting up a vegetable market — appeal — this Court opined that since the property of the appellants is taken away as a result of the aforesaid acquisition proceedings, the appellants are entitled to raise the question of applicability of the BPMC Act to initiate an acquisition proceedings for establishing a vegetable market, in view of the clear provisions of the 1963 Act, which is a special and a later Act — impugned order set aside and matter remitted to the High Court for deciding the petition afresh with specifically 2 issues -(i) whether the 1963 Act, a later and a special Act as compared to the 1949 Act would prevail over the 1949 Act or whether a harmonious construction is possible between the 1963 Act and the 1949 Act on the footing that they seem to govern two distinct and separate spheres of markets; (ii) the scope and extent of Section 78 of the BPMC Act and determine issue of validity of the impugned acquisition — appeal allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 795(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.6662 of 2004)
Ramjas Foundation & others Appellant(s) Vs. Union of India & others Respondent(s), decided on 11/9/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4,6 — notification and declaration under — acquisition of certain parts of appellant’s land for planned development of Delhi — challenged — the High Court declined to nullify the acquisition of appellant’s land — appeal — whether the land belonging to appellant No.1 is Wakf property and is exempted from acquisition — no — this Court viewed that the appellants are not entitled to any relief because despite strong indictment by this Court they deliberately refrained from mentioning details of the cases instituted by them in respect of the land situated at Sadhora Khurd and rejection of their claim for exemption under clause (d) of notification by the High Court and this Court. Further observed that in the deed of settlement executed by the British Government, the institution was described as a public educational charity and not as a Wakf — this Court held that the respondents shall be free to use the acquired land for the purpose of planned development of Delhi and the appellant shall not be entitled to obstruct the said proceedings — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 796(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s).2817-2818 of 2005 with Civil Appeal No. 2819 of 2005 with Civil Appeal Nos. 2820-2821 of 2005)
Prabhakar Raghunath Patil & others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on 11/11/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar .
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4,6 — notification and declaration under — acquisition of certain lands — claim filed for higher compensation of the lands acquired — the reference court, while relying on the sale instance and the oral evidence of the expert, enhanced the compensation determining the value of the open land at the rate of ` 225 per square meter and at the rate of ` 1,200 per square meter for the structure. The High Court affirmed the said orders — hence, the appeals — the expert witness failed to produce any specific evidence as to what was the age of the structure therefore, the expert was not justified in not making an assessment with regard to the age of the structure — despite the ambiguity surrounding the age of the structures, the quality of the structures stands testimony of the fact that the building possesses considerable value — the valuation fixed with regard to the compensation payable in respect of the structure which was acquired under the notification for acquisition raised from ` 1,200 per square meter to ` 1700 per square meter — appeals partly allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 820(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 9740 of 2010)
Special Deputy Collector Appellant(s) Vs. J. Sivaprakasam & others Respondent(s), decided on 11/18/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4(1) and 6 — notification and declaration under — in challenged — the ld. Single Judge quashed the preliminary notifications under Section 4(1) and the subsequent final declaration under Section 6 holding that publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act in the newspapers “Kadiravan” and “Madurai Mani” which had no circulation in the locality, did not fulfill the mandatory statutory requirement. The appellate Bench of the High Court confirmed the said orders holding that no material had been placed by the State Government or the appellant to establish that the two newspapers in which the notification was published had a reasonably wide circulation in Chennai — appeal — whether the finding of the High Court that the two regional language newspapers in which the Notification under section 4(1) was published did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality and therefore there is non-compliance with the provisions of section 4(1), calls for interference? — Yes — whether the acquisition is invalid? — no — the publications in two newspapers having regular and steady circulation, but having a market share of only 2% to 3% of the total newspapers can not invalidate the acquisition proceedings automatically. The purpose of publication of public notice provided in section 4(1) of the Act is to give notice of the proposal of acquisition to the persons concerned, such notice can also be by way of implied notice or constructive notice — this Court held that as both ‘Madurai Mani’ and ‘Kadiravan’ were sold and circulated in Chennai and as a good chunk of their total circulations was in Chennai, it may not be possible to hold that the said newspapers were not `regional daily newspapers circulating in the locality’. Nor will it be possible to invalidate the entire acquisition on the ground that the publication in the said two newspapers did not fulfill requirement of publication in `newspapers circulating in that locality’ — the publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act, did not affect respondents 5 to 11 in any manner as they had notice of the proposals for acquisition and participated in the enquiry under section 5A of the Act. Nothing to show that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had any subsisting interest in the two lands, when the preliminary notification was issued, therefore, whether the notification was published in newspapers having wide circulation or not would make no difference and they cannot complain about the absence of publication or about defective publication of notification under Section 4(1) in the newspapers — acquisition upheld — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 833(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 1058-1060 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos. 1061-1065 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos. 1066-1078 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 1080 of 2004)
Nadirsha Shapurji Patel (D) By Lrs. & others Appellant(s) Vs. Deputy Collector & LA & another Respondent(s), decided on 11/19/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4,6,18 and 54 — determination of market value of the land — sections 28,34,23 (1-A) and 23(2) — payment of interest on solatium and additional amount of compensation — acquisition of land — aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court,the appellants-claimants filed appeals before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation — the Division Bench determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of ` 22 per square meter. However, specifically ordered that no interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act on additional amount of compensation received under Section 23(1-A) & Section 23(2) of the Act would be paid to the claimants — appeal — the quality of acquired land established from the evidence on record, stated that no agricultural operations were carried out in the said land and that only grass, which was used as fodder for cattle, was grown in the said land — the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents, clearly stated that the acquired lands were badly damaged due to flood waters as the same were situated in low-lying area and having an uneven level — this Court opined that the market value as determined by the High Court is just and reasonable compensation for the land acquired. Further directed for the payment of interest on solatium to the appellants — appeals disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 847(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 3568 of 2005 with Civil Appeal No. 3566 of 2005 with Civil Appeal No. 3567 of 2005)
Sarup Singh & another Appellant(s) Vs. Union of India & another Respondent(s), decided on 11/25/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 23 1(A), 23(2) and 34 — enhancement of solatium and interest — benefit of — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — sections 151 and 152 — application under — acquisition of land — possession of the land was taken and the award was passed which became final and binding — whether the benefit of enhancement in the rate of solatium and interest as introduced by the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984 could be given to the claimants whose cases for payment of compensation were finalized prior to coming into force of the aforesaid Amendment Act of 98 of 1984? — whether the judgment and order given by the High Court enhancing the quantum of compensation by giving benefit of enhanced solatium from 15 per cent to 30 per cent and interest from 6 per cent to 9 per cent per annum in view of the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984 could be negated by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhatinda while acting as an Executing Court and whether the Executing Court of Additional District Judge, Bhatinda could go behind the judgment and decree passed by the High Court? — the award of the Collector and that of the reference court was passed prior to 30.04.1982. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the High Court giving the benefit provided by under the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984, viz., Section 23(1A) and 23(2) and the amended provision of Section 34 of the Act, cannot be made applicable in the cases of the appellants — this Court held that a decree once passed and which has become final and binding cannot be sought to be amended by filing petition under Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C., therefore, the executing court as also the High Court were justified in holding that the orders passed by the High Court granting enhanced solatium and interest as amended by Act 68 of 1984 is without jurisdiction and a nullity — appeals dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 889(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 10326-10327 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10328 of 2010 Civil Appeal Nos. 6564 of 2001 Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 2001)
D.D.A. Appellant(s) Vs. Bholanath Sharma (D) By Lrs. & others Respondent(s), decided on 12/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 3(b) and section 50 — ‘persons interested’, acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or Company — scope of — whether the DDA, at whose instance land of the respondents and others was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi and who was asked to release Rs.14,15,82,253/- for payment of compensation can be treated as “person interested” within the meaning of Section 3(b) and it was entitled to an opportunity to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court for determining the compensation — held Yes — the DDA was neither made a party to the proceedings held by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Reference Court nor it was given an opportunity to adduce evidence on the issue of determination of compensation and the High Court substantially increased market value of the acquired land without issuing notice to it — the fact not in dispute that proposal for acquisition of the land was initiated by the DDA. The DDA is an authority constituted for promoting and securing development of Delhi according to plan and for this purpose it has the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other property, etc. Therefore, it is clearly covered by the definition of the expression “local authority” — the DDA was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector. The DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce evidence before the Reference Court could enhance market value of the acquired land entitling the respondents to claim higher compensation and, as no notice or opportunity was given to the DDA by the Reference Court, the judgments rendered by it liable to be treated as nullity — impugned judgement of the Division Bench set aside and the matters remitted to the Reference Court for deciding the references afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties — appeals allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 907(Case/Appeal No:  I.A. Nos. 2609-2610 of 2009 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 with I.A. Nos. 2896/10 & 2900/10 In I.A. Nos. 2609-2610 of 2009 And I.A. No. 2928/10 In I.A. Nos. 2609-2610/09 In W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995)
Anand Arya & another T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Applicants/Petitioner(s) Vs. Union of India & others Respondent(s), decided on12/3/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Environment Protection Act, 1986 — Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 — section 2(ii) — gross violation of — construction of park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary — in question — the applicants contended that the project, undertaken at the instance of Uttar Pradesh Government is a “huge” unauthorized construction” and the action of the Uttar Pradesh Government in cutting down a veritable forest without the prior permission of the Central Government and this Court, and the construction, were in complete breach of the provisions of Act 1980 and 1986 Act. The project was causing great harm and was bound to further devastate the delicate and sensitive ecological balance of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary to which the site of the project lay adjacent. The project was, thus, in complete disregard of this Court’s directions concerning ‘buffer zones’ — the CEC on a consideration of all the materials including the report of the FSI held and found that the project site was not a forest or a deemed forest or a forest-like area. The project area was neither notified as “forest” nor recorded as “forest” in the Government record and even in the exercise carried out by the State of Uttar Pradesh, after detailed guidelines for identification of deemed forest were laid down, the project area was not identified to be deemed forest — in the revenue records, none of the khasras (plots) falling in the project area was ever shown as jungle or forest, therefore, the construction of the project without the prior permission from the Central Government does not in any way contravene section 2 of the FC Act — the CEC in its report blame on the State Government of UP for its omission to identify the Eco-sensitive zones but accept that in the absence of a decision/notification there was no legal bar against the construction of the project on the ground that it was sited adjacent to the bird sanctuary — none of the expert bodies viewed that the project is so calamitous or ruinous for the bird sanctuary that it needs to be altogether scrapped in order to save the Sanctuary — the Supreme Court held that in order to ensure full compliance with the recommendations of the expert bodies and the directions of this Court, the construction of the project needs to be overseen by an expert committee — interlocutory applications disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 935(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 8042 of 2004)
Anjani Molu Dessai Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Goa & another Respondent(s), decided on 12/7/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — determination of compensation — an area of 3,65,375 sq.m. of land was acquired for laying the New Broad Gauge line for Konkan Railway — the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.m. for bharad (orchard) lands and Rs.6/- per sq.m. for irrigated (paddy) lands. The Reference Court and the High Court affirmed the said valuation — appeal — whether compensation awarded, should have been at a higher rate — the Land Acquisition Collector deducted 45% from the sale price disclosed by the first sale deed towards the cost of development — the Supreme Court opined that where the land sold under the relied upon sale deed and the acquired lands are both are of similar nature the question of making any deduction towards development cost to arrive at the cost of `undeveloped land’ would not arise. Such a deduction would have been necessary if the sale deed relied upon related to a developed residential or commercial plot, therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector was not justified in making 45% deduction from the price disclosed by the Sale Deed. Further, held that once it is found that the first sale deed was in regard to a comparable land and the second sale deed was not in regard to a comparable land, the second sale deed ought to have been excluded from consideration — the compensation for the acquired lands (bharad lands) is increased to Rs.57.50 per sq.m. and Rs.51.50 per sq.m. for paddy lands with additional amount at 12% p.a. and solatium at 30% on the compensation amount — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 29(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 51-52 of 2011 with C.A. Nos. 53-54,55-56,57-58,59-60,61-62,63-64,71-72 & 73-74 of 2011)
The Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & others Respondent(s), decided on1/4/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — determination of market value of the acquired lands — the Reference Court determined the compensation for the acquired lands as Rs.2,17,372/- per acre after deducting 53% towards development. However, the High Court increased the compensation to the land owners to Rs.4,42,000/- per acre and viewed that the deduction/cut towards development factor should be only 33% instead of 53% adopted by the Reference Court — hence, the appeals — evidence on record shows that the acquired lands were situated within the municipal limits, though on the outskirts of Gadag-Betegeri within a distance of one kilometer from Gadag Railway Station and the bus stand; and that there were several residential colonies and colleges in the surrounding areas. Therefore though the lands were agricultural, they could be classified as lands having urban development potential and having regard to the partial access to infrastructural facilities, a deduction of 40% towards development cost is to be applied — the Supreme Court directed to reduce the compensation awarded from Rs.4,42,875/- to Rs.2,95,500/- per acre with all statutory benefits — appeals partly allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 52(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 711 of 2011)
Offshore Holdings P. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Bangalore Development Authority & others Respondents, decided on 1/18/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 11A — Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 — section 36 — application of the provisions of section 11A of the LA Act to the BDA Act — to consider — whether the State law is in conflict with or repugnant to Central law, if so, what would be its effect — the provisions of the BDA Act constitute a self-contained code in itself, object of which is planned development under the scheme and not acquisition of land. Thus, only those provisions of the Land Acquisition Act which relate to the acquisition, and have not been enacted under the State law, have to be read into the BDA Act. The bar contained in Sections 6 and 11A of the Central Act cannot be made an integral part of the State Act as the State Act itself has provided specific time-frames under its various provisions as well as consequences of default thereto — the BDA Act does not admit reading of provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act into its scheme as it is bound to debilitate the very object of the State law. The BDA Act does not provide any provision in regard to compensation and manner of acquisition for which it refers to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There are no provisions in the BDA Act which lay down detailed mechanism for the acquisition of property, thus, there is no apparent irreconcilable conflict — the Supreme Court held that - ” the provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal remedies provided under the said Act, can be read into an acquisition controlled by the provisions of the BDA Act but with a specific exception that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in so far as they provide different time frames and consequences of default thereof, including lapsing of acquisition proceedings ,cannot be read into the BDA Act. Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act being one of such provisions cannot be applied to the acquisitions under the provisions of the BDA Act.”

2011 SCCL.COM 66(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 5007-5024 of 2002)
Keshavadas Shridharao Savakar & others Appellant(s) Vs. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition & another Respondent(s),decided on 1/28/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — quantum of the market value of the land acquired by the Government of Karnataka — to determine — the Reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.14,500/- per gunta, apart from granting other statutory benefits. However, the High Court set aside the said judgement and remanded the matter to the Reference Court with a direction to the parties to lead additional evidence — appeals — the Supreme Court found that about 20 years have elapsed since the initiation of acquisition proceedings, therefore, directed the Housing Board to pay to the appellants the amount of compensation as fixed by the Reference Court after imposing a deduction of 75% with all the statutory benefits on the said amount — appeals disposed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 107(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s).10061 of 2010)
State of U.P. & others Appellant(s) Vs. Jasvir Singh & others Respondents, decided on 11/26/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — acquisition of lands — the issue relating to increase of compensation is pending is appeals before the High Court — the respondents thereafter filed a writ petition seeking a direction for issue of a fresh notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Act and also sought a direction to the appellant to pay mesne profits and damages with interest, after adjusting the amount under the award already made and further determining the market value as on the date of final award after a fresh notification — whether the High Court while hearing a writ petition challenging a Land Acquisition can force the State Government to settle the matter outside the Court — no — whether the High Court was justified in calling the senior officers of the state government and directing them to settle the matter, when the writ petition filed by Respondents is being resisted by the state government — no — whether the High Court was justified in repeatedly directing the senior officers of the rank of Secretaries to Government to be present in court, when the state government refused to settle the matter, and pressurize them to settle the disputed claim, by threatening to recover the entire interest from their salaries — no — the Supreme Court held that as both the writ petition and the appeals are pending, it cannot be said that there is any delay on the part of the state government or its officers in effecting payment of compensation. The delay is in fact on account of the pendency of the matters before the High Court — the procedure and method adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court is found improper, therefore, the interim directions of the Division Bench, issued while dealing with a writ petition challenging the acquisition, requiring the Principal Secretary (PWD), Principal Secretary (Finance) or Principal Secretary (Revenue) to be present on different dates are liable to set aside — impugned order set aside and matter remitted back to the High Court for expeditious disposal — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 112(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 1272 of 2011 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1246-1271, 1273-1274, 1277-1281, 1283, 1285-1287, 1289-1293, 1295-1300, 1302-1313, 1315-1321 & 1284 of 2011)
State of Orissa & another Appellants Vs. Mamata Mohanty Respondent, decided on 2/9/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Pay Scale — as per the recommendations of U.G.C. — benefit of — the respondent was appointed as a Lecturer and she was granted the benefit of receiving 1/3rd grant-in-aid. Thereafter, she filed writ petition seeking a direction to the State Government to pay the pre-revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 as per the UGC pay scale — the appellants contested the said writ petition pointing out that the respondent had secured only 40 percent marks in her Master’s course thus, her appointment, being not in consonance with law, remained illegal. However, the High Court allowed the said writ petition giving the benefit of the U.G.C. pay scale to her w.e.f. 1.6.1984 — hence, the appeal — the University as well as the State of Orissa issued letters/circulars for condonation of deficiency of eligibility qualification — whether such orders can be given effect to or be considered by the courts to grant a relief to the persons whose appointments had been illegal for want of eligibility and for not following the procedure prescribed by law — whether the delay and laches could be condoned all together giving the respondents the impetus of the earlier judgments in cases of persons who had been diligent enough to approach the Court within a reasonable period — the Supreme Court held that a teacher who had been appointed without possessing the requisite qualification at initial stage cannot get the benefit of grant-in-aid scheme unless he acquires the additional qualification and, therefore, question of grant of UGC pay scale would not arise. However opined that terminating the services of those who had been appointed illegally and/or withdrawing the benefits of grant-in-aid scheme of those who had not completed the deficiency in eligibility/educational qualification may not be desirable as a long period has elapsed — appeals disposed — directions issued.

2011 SCCL.COM 119(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 6887-6890 of 2003)
Union of India & another Appellant(s) Vs. Shankari Devi & another Respondent(s), decided on 2/10/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Interlocutory order — in challenge — Land Acquisition — determination of the amount of compensation — appointment of arbitrator — writ petition filed for — the arbitrator awarded compensation for the acquired land — challenged — the learned Single Judge stayed the award insofar as it contemplated payment of solatium to the land owners — the appellants questioned the said interlocutory order of the ld. Single Judge — the Division Bench declined to interfere with the interlocutory orders passed by the learned Single Judge — hence, the appeals — the appellants omitted to place on record the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which were challenged, thus, the Supreme Court held that it is not possible for this Court to appreciate the appellants’ challenge to the impugned orders in a correct perspective — the appellants failed to show any patent error in the discretion exercised by the Division Bench of the High Court not to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, who had not entertained the appellants’ prayer for wholesome stay — appeals dismissed with costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 125(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 1884 of 2011 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1887, 1885, 1886 of 2011)
Union of India Appellant Vs. Giani Respondent, decided on 2/17/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 23 (1A) — payment of additional amount — in question — application for condonation of delay — allowed — the appellant raised issue, that the respondent in each of the appeals is not entitled to receive compensation under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which has been granted in their favour by the orders of the High Court — the Supreme Court found that the acquisition proceeding commenced with the notification under Section 4 issued on 06.03.1965 and it culminated in passing of the award by the Collector on 09.07.1980, i.e., before 30.04.1982, the date from which the amending Act 68 of 1984 was made applicable to the pending and subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1A) — appeals partly allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 126(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 1494 of 2011)
State of Punjab Appellant Vs. Amarjit Singh & another Respondents, decided on 2/8/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 23 (1A), 23(2) — payment of additional amount and solatium — whether additional amount under Section 23(1A) is payable on the solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act — acquisition of land — compensation awarded by the reference Court — the respondents filed execution application claiming additional amount of 12% per annum under Section 23(1A) of the Act, not only on the market value of the land, but also on the solatium amount. The said claim was accepted by the Executing Court and confirmed by the High Court — appeal — the additional amount under Section 23(1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) are both payable only on the market value determined under Section 23(1) of the Act and not on any other amount. Solatium under Section 23(2) is not payable on the additional amount nor additional amount under Section 23(1A) payable on solatium — the Supreme Court held that additional amount under Section 23(1A) is awardable only on the market value determined under the first factor of Section 23(1) of the Act and cannot be calculated on the solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act — the order of the High Court and the Executing Court holding that additional amount under Section 23(1A) is payable on solatium, are set aside — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 156(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 2020 of 2011)
Brij Pal Bhargava & others Appellants Vs. State of U.P. & others Respondents, decided on 2/23/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4 and 6 — notification and declaration under — for acquisition of lands — challenged — dismissed — hence, the appeal — the acquisition for the public purpose of planned housing development is very much a public purpose. The said acquisition has been justified on account of increase in the population and fast industrial development, therefore, no question of malafides in the acquisition — the original report and the order sheet specifically mentioned that not only was the hearing afforded, but all the objections have been specifically considered. Further seeing the report and the orders passed, the Supreme Court opined that not only the possession was taken, but there are activities going on at the behest of the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority — impugned judgment of the High Court confirmed — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 165(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 1182 of 2003 With Civil Appeal No.1183 of 2003)
State of West Bengal & others Appellant(s) Vs. Prafulla Churan Law & others Respondent(s), decided on 2/4/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 4(1) r/w section 17 — acquisition of the premises invoking urgency clause — annulled — in challenge — the possession of the premises in question was taken in 1944 under the Defence of India Act. After 46 years, an attempt was made by the appellants to acquire the premises but the notification issued u/sec. 4(1) was quashed by the High Court — the State Government again issued notification for acquisition of land and invoked urgency clause u/sec.17 — writ petition filed — the Division Bench quashed the said acquisition — appeal — the appellants have not explained as to why appropriate steps could not be taken for acquisition of the premises by complying with the requirement of Section 5-A of the Act — the time gap of 3 years between the quashing of first notification and issue of the second notification was too long to justify invoking of urgency clause which resulted in depriving the respondents of their right to raise objection against acquisition of the premises — the Supreme Court held that the respondents could not be deprived of their legitimate right to raise objection and to be heard against the proposed acquisition of the premises — appeals dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 189(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 2334 of 2011 With Civil Appeal No.2335 of 2011)
Dev Sharan & others Appellant(s) Vs. State of U.P. & others Respondent(s), decided on 3/7/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — sections 4,6 and 17A — acquisition of agricultural lands for the construction of the district jail of Shahjahanpur — in challenge — the State Government issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17. However, the provisions of Section 5A inquiry were dispensed with in view of the pressing urgency in the matter of construction of the jails — writ petition filed — dismissed — appeal — whether in the admitted facts of the case, invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) is justified — held no — the valuable right of the appellants under Section 5A of the Act cannot flattened and steamrolled on the `ipsi dixit’ of the executive authority — the Supreme Court found that the time which elapsed between publication of Section 4(1) and Section 17 notifications, and Section 6 declaration, in the local newspapers is of 11 months and 23 days, i.e. almost one year. This slow pace at which the government machinery had functioned in processing the acquisition, clearly evinces that there was no urgency for acquiring the land so as to warrant invoking Section 17 (4) of the Act — held that the State Government was not justified, in the facts of the case, no invoke the emergency provision of Section 17(4) — impugned notification u/secs. 4 & 6 relating to appellants lands quashed — appeals allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 258(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2565-2571 of 2011)
Koka Suryanarayana Rao & others Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Rev. Div. Officer A.P. Respondent, decided on 3/17/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Acquisition of land — calculation memos — correctness of — in question — the reference Court by its order and decree enhanced the compensation @ Rs.40/- per square yard from Rs.10/- per square yard, increased the compensation for buildings as well as the trees and also ordered the solatium @ 15% and interest @ 4% per annum. The High Court confirmed the compensation awarded by the reference Court and further held that in addition to the market value of the land, the claimants shall be entitled to the additional amount calculated @ 12% per annum on such market value — the Executing Court allowed the execution petitions and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the decretal amount — the Land Acquisition Officer filed revision petitions against the order of the Executing Court — allowed — hence, the appeals — the Supreme Court observed that once the APSRTC had chosen to challenge the calculation memos and had failed in that exercise right up to this Court, the Land Acquisition Officer is now trying to challenge the very same orders — the respondent was a party to all the proceedings including the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the APSRTC, firstly, for its impleadment and, secondly, against the order passed by the Executing Court accepting the calculation memos however, the respondent did not raise its finger against the calculation memos presented by the decree-holder-appellants — held that the question of correctness of the calculation memos was considered by the High Court and this Court at various stages, therefore, cannot be entertained — the order of the High Court set aside and that of the Executing Court restored — appeals allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 296(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No (s). 3072-73 of 2004 With Civil Appeal No. 3199 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No. 3200 of 2008)
Shanta Talwar & another Appellant(s) Vs. Union of India & others Respondent(s), decided on 4/5/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4,5-A, 6, 17(1) r/w section 17(4) — acquisition of lands on urgency basis for construction of metro station — Metro Railways Act, 1978 — provisions of — whether applicable — acquisition proceedings challenged on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Metro Railways Act, which is applicable to the city of Delhi, the land for the purpose of construction of Metro Railway could and should only be acquired under the provisions of the said Act and not under the provisions of the LA Act — no express provision in the Metro Railways Act repealing applicability of the provisions of the LA Act thus, it cannot be construed that the Metro Railways Act is a special Act, of such a nature, that with the enactment of the said Act the general law in LA Act would get obliterated and automatically repealed so far as acquisition of land for the purpose of Metro Railways — the Supreme Court found no reason to quash the notification issued under Section 4 of the LA Act so as to postpone the date of acquisition to a later period thereby allowing the appellants an opportunity of getting higher compensation — appeals dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 316(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3261 of 2011)
Sri Radhy Shyam (Dead) Through L.Rs. and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of U.P. and others Respondent(s), decided on 4/15/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 17(1) & 17(4) — acquisition of land by invocation of — in question — section 5A — whether the High Court was justified in non-suiting the appellants on the ground that they had not raised a specific plea supported by a proper affidavit to question the decision taken by the State Government to invoke Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act — whether there was any valid ground or justification for invoking the urgency provision contained in Section 17(1) and to exclude the application of Section 5A for the acquisition of land for planned industrial development of the district — no — the acquisition is primarily meant to cater private interest in the name of industrial development of the district. No evidence has been produced before the Court to show that the State Government and/or agencies/instrumentalities of the State are intending to establish industrial units on the acquired land either by itself or through its agencies/instrumentalities — the Supreme Court observed that even if planned industrial development of the district is treated as public purpose within the meaning of Section 4, there was no urgency which could justify the exercise of power by the State Government under Section 17(1) and 17(4). The private entrepreneurs, who are desirous of making investment in the State, take their own time in setting up the industrial units. Therefore, time required for ensuring compliance of the provisions contained in Section 5-A cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be portrayed as delay which will frustrate the purpose of acquisition — held that there was no real and substantive urgency to justify invoking of the urgency provision under Section 17(1) and to exclude the application of Section 5-A — impugned order of the High Court set aside — the respondents are directed to proceed from the stage of Section 4 notification and take appropriate action after complying with Section 5-A(1) and (2) of the Act — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 329(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 5740-5741 of 2005)
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Appellant(s) Vs. R. Sivasankara Mehta and another Respondent(s), decided on 4/13/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 — section 48-B — transfer of land to original owner in certain cases — acquisition of land — in 1995 representation was made by the respondent(s) for release/re-conveyance of a portion of the land which was acquired in 1949 inter alia on the ground that the appellant-Corporation was not utilising the same — the Government of Tamil Nadu cancelled the order of re-conveyance earlier issued — writ petition filed — the High Court allowed the writ petitions inter alia on the ground that the Government is bound by provisions of promissory estoppel and also by reason of the fact that the order of cancellation of re-conveyance was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the land owners — appeals — the Supreme Court opined that the respondent(s) has no right of asking for re-conveyance in 1995 as the possession of the property was taken over by the State as early as in 1949 when the Award was passed and the land vested in the State Government in 1962. Thereafter it was transferred to the Corporation — no case of malafide or perversity has been made out in the writ petitions — as per the clear mandate of Section 48 of the principal Act, no right of the landowners to apply for re-conveyance in respect of a land which had vested in the Government long ago — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeals allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 331(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 788 of 2006)
Union of India Appellant Vs. Dhiraj (D) Through Lrs. Respondents, decided on 4/19/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 54 — appeal under — for enhancement of acquisition compensation — allowed — hence, the appeal — acquisition of land for public purpose — the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award fixing the rate of compensation at ` 3,000/- per bigha. The Reference Court enhanced and fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of ` 10,000/- per bigha for ab-pash land and ` 5,000/- per bigha for gair-ab-pash land. However, the High Court further enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to ` 345/- per square yard with the other benefits — the Supreme Court directed to reduce the compensation payable to the claimants to ` 76,550/- with 10% acceleration and other statutory benefits available to them under law. Further directed that the claimants shall be entitled to claim interest on the amount of solatium for the permissible period — appeal partly allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 354(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 7245 of 2003)
Ivo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes & others Appellant(s) Vs. Government of Goa & another Respondent(s), decided on 2/23/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 53, 28, 34 — CPC, 1908 — Order XXI, Rule 1 — additional interest — liability for payment of — acquisition of land — dispute regarding apportionment of compensation — the District Judge held that the liability of the respondents to pay interest subsisted till the respondents had not deposited the amount in the court. Since, the respondents had deposited the amount of compensation in their Revenue account and had utilized the same instead of depositing it in Court, the respondents were liable to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on compensation — petition filed — the High Court set aside the orders of the District Court — appeal — the respondents did not deposit the amount in court, but in their Revenue account and utilized the same — the Supreme Court held that after a reasonable period, if the claimants do not come forward to collect compensation, then it should be deposited in court by the State. Allowing the State to keep the compensation with itself and utilizing it cannot possibly be permitted being contrary to the provisions of the Act — impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and of the District Judge restored — appeal allowed — no cost.

2011 SCCL.COM 356(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 3604 of 2011)
Banda Development Authority, Banda Appellant Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & others Respondents, decided on 4/26/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4(1), 17(1) and 17(4) — acquisition of land — whether the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 in 2008 for nullifying the acquisition of his land by the State Government vide notification dated 8.9.1998 which was followed by declaration dated 7.9.1999 on the ground of non passing of award within the time prescribed under Section 11A — held no — the respondent No.1 had no complaint against the acquisition of land or taking of possession by the State Government and delivery thereof to the BDA — the Supreme Court held that the delay of nine years from the date of publication of the declaration issued under Section 6(1) and almost six years from the date of passing of award should have been treated by the High Court as more than sufficient for denying equitable relief to respondent No.1. Further held that the action of the concerned State authorities to go to the spot and prepare panchnama showing delivery of possession was sufficient for recording a finding that actual possession of the entire acquired land had been taken and handed over to the BDA in 2001, thus, the impugned order of the High Court that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance of Section 11A set aside — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 368(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 3615 of 2011)
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow Appellant Vs. Sheo Narain Kushwaha & others Respondent(s), decided on 4/25/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41, Rule 11 — power to dismiss appeals without sending notice to lower court — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 54 — appeal filed under — challenging the judgment of the Reference Court which increased the compensation for the acquired land of respondents from Rs.10,250/- per bigha to Rs.1,10,250/- per bigha — the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award of Rs.1,10,250/- per bigha as compensation — hence, the appeal — the Supreme Court viewed that the appeal filed by the appellant raised sufficient grounds which require to be dealt with and decided by the High Court on merits — impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for disposal of the appeal on merits — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 369(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 2706-2707 of 2004)
Bilkis and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra & others Respondent(s), decided on 4/5/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4(1), 6 — notification and declaration under — acquisition of land — Land Acquisition Officer passed an award giving compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per Aar and Rs.3,79,498/- towards structures and Rs.6,300/- towards fruit-bearing trees. The Reference Court enhanced compensation to an amount of Rs.650/- per Aar as cost of land — the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the State and reduced the market value of the land to Rs.500/- per Aar — appeal for enhancement of compensation — though the claimant has been unable to prove the existence of a hotel, it has been found that some structures for the same existed. Therefore, there is some development on the acquired land. Further, the land is also adjacent to the Aurangabad-Jalgaon highway and is only 6 to 8 kms. away from the Ajantha caves, an internationally famous tourist destination. Thus, there is great future potential for development with respect to the acquired land — impugned order of the High Court set aside and of the Reference Court restored — appeal partly allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 392(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal Nos. 7496-7497 of 2005 With Civil Appeal Nos. 7498-7499 of 2005 with Civil Appeal No.1122 of 2011 with Civil Appeal No.3613 of 2008)
Trishala Jain & another Appellant(s) Vs. State of Uttaranchal & another Respondent(s), decided on 5/5/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4(1), 6(1), 18 — notification and declaration under — for acquisition of land — the SLAO applied belting system to the acquired land and assessed the market value — reference applications filed — the Reference Court held application of belting system improper as entire land was acquired for one purpose, thus, enhanced compensation to flat rate of ` 5,12,000 per bigha along with other statutory benefits. However, the High Court merely raised the deduction from 20% to 33.33% thus awarding the compensation at the rate of ` 4,26,667 per bigha — hence, the appeals — what should be the just and fair market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act — whether there ought to be any deduction after determining the fair market value of the land — no evidence to show that the acquired land itself is developed and is having all the required facilities and amenities — the Supreme Court held it a case of acquisition of land which is situated on a reasonably good location surrounded by developed areas having civic amenities and facilities and further development activity was going on in nearby areas. Further, the land acquired had the potential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes — the judgment of the High Court modified to the extent that the compensation payable to the claimants is reduced from ` 22,40,001.80 per acre to ` 11,70,000 per acre with interests and other statutory benefits permissible under the law — appeals disposed.

2011 SCCL.COM 395(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4099 of 2000 With Civil Appeal No.4100 of 2000, 4101 of 2000 And Civil Appeal No. 3949 of 2011)
Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Appellant Vs. M. Prabhakar and others Respondent(s), decided on 5/5/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Evacuee Property Act, 1950 — section 7(1) — notice under — validity of — Displaced Persons Act, 1954 — section 12 — notification under — ownership claim of the disputed lands — in question — acquisition of the disputed lands for the rehabilitation of the persons who were displaced during the partition. Thereafter, proceedings for auctioning of the disputed lands started — ancestors of the respondents claimed ownership of the disputed lands — whether the contesting respondents have been guilty of delay and laches — whether the dismissal of the writ petition No. 1051 of 1966 by the High Court decided the matter fully and finally — yes — whether the lands in question are evacuee property as defined under the Evacuee Property Act — what is the effect and the consequence of the notification issued under Section 12(1) of the Displaced Persons Act — no satisfactory explanation offered by the respondents in approaching the writ court after an inordinate delay of nearly 15 years from the date of the notification issued under the Evacuee Property Act — the Judgment and order of the High Court was binding on the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act and, therefore, they could not have reagitated the correctness or otherwise of the notification dated 11.12.1952 issued under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act — neither the State Government nor the contesting respondents could produce any records or documents in support of their claim since the records were old and not traceable — the Supreme Court held that the notification issued under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act is valid in law and the notification issued by the Central Govt. under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act, for the `disputed lands’ had vested in the Central Govt. and thereby had lost the status of evacuee property. Further, concluded that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian under the Evacuee Property Act — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 399(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.2913-2914 of 2011)
Syed Maqbool Ali Appellant Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another Respondent(s), decided on 4/4/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Acquisition of land — for construction of road — several plots of the appellant occupied — without proper acquisition and payment of compensation — writ petition filed — dismissed — hence, the appeals — whether the High Court could have dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to acquire the land and pay compensation (on the ground that his land has been taken over without acquisition) by holding that the remedy lies under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 — the remedy of land holder whose land is taken without acquisition is either to file a civil suit for recovery of possession and/or for compensation, or approach the High Court by filing a writ petition if the action can be shown to be arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, biased, malafide or without the authority of law, and seek a direction that the land should be acquired in a manner known to law, therefore, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the remedy was under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — impugned order set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration and disposal of the writ petition in accordance with law — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 400(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.2959 of 2011 With Civil Appeal Nos. 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963 of 2011)
Haryana State Agri. Market Board & another Appellant(s) Vs. Krishan Kumar & others Respondent(s), decided on 4/5/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — acquisition of land — market value — in challenge — whether the High Court was justified in increasing the compensation more than six times from Rs.3,40,000/- per acre to Rs.20,57,000/- per acre — no — the Supreme Court viewed that the acquired lands were in a semi-developed areas within the Ganaur municipal limits, therefore, an aggregate deduction of 45% from the value of residential plots would be appropriate to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands — the acquisition compensation reduced from Rs.425/- per sq.yd. to Rs.140/- per sq.yd. and with all statutory benefits — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 408(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 3779 of 2011)
Prahlad Singh & others Appellant(s) Vs. Union of India & others Respondent(s), decided on 4/29/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 16 — acquisition of land — in question — whether the acquired land can be treated to have vested in the State Government under Section 16 of the Act, 1894 on the making of an award by the Collector though the actual and physical possession continues with the landowner — writ petition filed — the High Court dismissed the petition and held that once the land has vested in the State Government, the writ petitioners do not have the locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings — the actual and physical possession of the acquired land always remained with the appellants and no evidence has been produced by the respondents to show that possession was taken by preparing a panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses and their signatures were obtained on the panchnama — the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in recording a finding that the acquired land will be deemed to have vested in the State Government — impugned order set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition on merits — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 426(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal Nos. 5094 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No. 5113 of 2005)
Mahadev Govind Gharge & others Appellant(s) Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka Respondent(s), decided on 5/10/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XLI Rule 22 — interpretation of — compensation for acquired lands in dispute — the appellants filed cross-objections before the High Court, under Order XLI, Rule 22 of CPC, along with an application for condonation of delay of 404 days in filing the cross-objections — dismissed — hence, the appeal — the appellant(s) were caveators before the High Court and they were heard not only while passing of interim orders but the appeal itself was admitted in their presence. Further, the cross-objector not merely had the knowledge of pendency of the appeal and order of the High Court for its final disposal but he actually participated at all the stages of the proceedings, thus, one month of prescribed period in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 commenced from the date on which the High Court ordered that the appeal may be listed for hearing — no specific reasons recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment as to why the averments made by the cross-objector did not find favour and was disbelieved — impugned order of the High Court set aside limited to the extent that the appellants showed sufficient/reasonable cause for grant of further time to file the cross objections beyond the period of one month in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code. Delay in filing the cross-objections is thus condoned — the High Court is directed to dispose the appeals afresh.

2011 SCCL.COM 445(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 2082 of 2011 With Civil Appeal Nos.2083-2097 of 2011 with Civil Appeal Nos.2098-2112 of 2011 with Civil Appeal No.2115 of 2011 with Civil Appeal No.2116 of 2011)
Narmada Bachao Andolan Appellant withNarmada Hydro-Development Corporation Appellant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another Respondents, decided on 5/11/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: C.A.2115-2116/2011 Acquisition of land — entitlement for land in lieu of the acquired land — for the construction of the Omkareshwar Dam, a huge area of land was acquired, however, the displaced persons were allegedly not offered the land under the R & R Policy, rather compensation for their land was deposited in their accounts — the High Court issued a large number of directions as interim measures, including the direction for allotment of land in lieu of land acquired and to treat the major sons of the family, as independent families for the purpose of allotment of agricultural land — appeals — whether any of the findings recorded by the High Court on the issue of entitlement for land in lieu of land acquired suffers from perversity — material on record showed that about 56% of the oustees are members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and no attempt ever been made by the appellant-State to either acquire land from other persons having a larger area of land resorting to the provisions of Act 1894 or purchase the same by agreement/negotiation for resettlement of the oustees — the direction given by the High Court modified to the extent that the displaced families who have not withdrawn SRG benefits/compensation voluntarily and submit applications for allotment of land before the Authority concerned, shall be entitled to the allotment of agricultural land in terms of the R & R Policy however, direction of the High Court to allot agricultural land to major sons of the oustees set aside.C.A.2082/2011 Allotment of land — whether landless oustees are entitled to allotment of agricultural land — no — whether the NWDT Award is applicable to the present project of the Omkareshwar Dam — no — whether the oustees of 5 villages which have already been submerged, are entitled to allotment of land in lieu of land acquired, in spite of the fact that the SRG had already been granted to them — held yes. C.A.2083-2112/2011 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 48 — withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings — whether it is taking of actual physical possession or symbolic/paper possession which would be sufficient to meet the requirement of law — whether submergence temporarily for a very short period in an exceptional flood situation, warrants acquisition of the land in dispute — the land in dispute is an agricultural land and has 167 dwelling houses, law in fact requires taking over the actual physical possession — the Supreme Court held that the State is entitled to abandon the Land Acquisition proceedings in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act 1894. However, it shall not apply to 167 dwelling units on the said land. Such persons shall be entitled for the benefit of R & R Policy — appeals disposed.

2011 SCCL.COM 498(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.7374 of 2003 with Civil Appeal No.7375 of 2003)
Jaipur Development Authority and others Appellants Vs. Vijay Kumar Data and another with Daya Kishan Data Respondents, decided on 7/12/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 — legitimacy on the illegal transactions involving purchase of the acquired land — was questioned — the Land Acquisition Officer passed an unusual award whereby he not only determined the amount of compensation payable to the landowners and the beneficiaries of illegal transfers, but also directed allotment of plots to the owners, their transferees and nominees/sub-nominees out of the acquired land — draw of lots held for allotment of plots — the unsuccessful awardees filed writ petitions — the Division Bench granted relief to the writ petitioners on the ground of violation of the equality clause and directed that they should also be allotted plots as per their entitlement — hence, the appeals — whether the Division Bench of the High Court could have granted relief to the respondents by entertaining an altogether new case with reference to the so called policy framed by the State Government for regularization of the illegal allotments / encroachments of the acquired land in the Lal Kothi and Prithviraj Nagar Schemes — held no — the Division Bench ignored the unchallenged findings recorded by the Tribunal and the trial Court that the transferor of the respondents did not have valid title over the land and he had no right to secure allotment of 1500 sq. yds. land in the Lal Kothi Scheme — the Supreme Court viewed that even if the instructions by the Committee could be treated as policy decision of the Government, the High Court should have quashed the same because the said policy was clearly contrary to the law and was a crude attempt by the concerned political functionaries of the State to legalise what had already been declared illegal — impugned judgment set aside — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 509(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5448 of 2006 with C.A. Nos. 5382, 5387, 5388, 5389, 5391, 5394, 5395, 5397, 5412, 5421, 5428, 5429, 5432, 5436, 5444, 5445, 5446, 5455, 5457, 5499, 5501, 5502, 5504, 5506, 5507, 5508, 5511, 5533 & 5452 of 2006)
Fida Hussain & Ors. Appellants Vs. Moradabad Development Authority & Anr. Respondents, decided on 7/19/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — adequacy of compensation for the acquisition of land — appeals filed — for enhancement of compensation — dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 526(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 6293 of 2011)
Devendra Singh & others Appellant(s) Vs. State of U.P. & others Respondent(s), decided on 8/3/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 6, 17(1) & 17(4) — acquisition of land — invocation of urgency clause — section 5-A — denial of valuable right under — the State Government issued a Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act whereby, it directed the Collector of Jyotiba Phule Nagar to take possession of the disputed land on the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the Notice under Section 9(1) even in the absence of any award being made under Section 11 — writ petition filed — the High Court dismissed the writ Petition on the ground that the construction of the District Jail is an urgent matter — hence, the appeal — whether the respondent is justified in invoking the urgency provision under Section 17(1) and excluding the application of Section 5-A in terms of Section 17(4) of the Act for acquisition of the land for construction of District Jail — the series of events shows lethargy and lackadaisical attitude of the State Government — the Supreme Court observed that delay only accelerates or increases the urgency of need of acquisition, which contemplates that delay does not create a ground or cause for urgency but increases the already existing urgency for acquisition of land for any public purpose, thus, held that the State Government was not justified, to invoke the emergency provision of Section 17(4) of the Act and the appellants cannot be denied of their valuable right under section 5-A — impugned judgment of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 533(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4772 of 1998)
Rajiv Sarin & another Appellant(s) Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others and others Respondent(s), decided on 8/9/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 and Rules, 1965 — sections 4 A, 18(1) (cc) and 19(1)(b) — constitutional validity of — under challenge — sections 12, 4A, 19 — contravention of the provisions of — whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation even when their forest land is acquired by the government, merely because the appellants had not derived any income from the said forest — to consider — the KUZALR Act relates to agrarian reforms and therefore, forest land becomes the property of the State Government and is dealt with like land, which is acquired under KUZALR Act — the right, title or interests of a hissedar acquired without payment of any compensation is contrary to the express provisions of KUZALR Act itself — the Supreme Court held that the persons who are maintaining the forest and preserving it for future and posterity cannot be penalised by giving nil compensation only because of the reason that they were in fact chose to maintain the forest instead of exploiting it — validity of the Act upheld and the second respondent is directed to determine and award compensation to the appellants by following a reasonable and intelligible criterion on the guidelines provided with interest @ 6% p.a. on the compensation amount to the appellants — appeal disposed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 553(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 6520 of 2003 With Civil Appeal No. 6521-6537 of 2003 And Civil Appeal No.6538 of 2003)
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & another Appellant(s) Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 8/9/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anill R. Dave.
Subject Index: A) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 — section 11 — legal validity of with the notification issued by the State Government — under challenge — whether Section 110 is invalid due to excessive delegation of legislative powers on the State Government — no — whether the failure to follow the procedure laid down under Section 140 of the Act has affected the legal validity of the notification — no — once the conditional exemption from the provisions of the Land Reforms Act for the lands used for Linaloe cultivation had been withdrawn, the land would have vested in the State — non-laying of the notification under Section 140 of the Land Reforms Act before the State Legislature is a curable defect and it will not affect the validity of the notification or action taken thereunder. B) Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 — constitutional validity of — in challenge — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — since the dominant purpose of the Act was to preserve and protect Roerichs’ Estate as part of agrarian reforms the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 enacted for the purpose of acquisition of land needed for public purposes for companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition, which is substantially and materially different from the impugned Act — the Acquisition Act is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution after having obtained the assent of the President and hence immune from challenge under Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution. C) Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 300 A — scope of — to consider — whether the concept of eminent domain be read into Art.300A and in the statute enacted to deprive a person of his property — Public purpose is a pre-condition for deprivation of a person from his property under Article 300A and the right to claim compensation is also inbuilt in that Article and when a person is deprived of his property the State has to justify both the grounds which may depend on scheme of the statute, legislative policy, object and purpose of the legislature and other related factors — the notified authority is directed to disburse the amount of compensation fixed by the Act to the legitimate claimants in accordance with law.

2011 SCCL.COM 559(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 7258 of 2011 With C.A. Nos. 7259, 7260, 7261, 7262, 7263, 7264, 7265, 7266, 7267, 7268, 7269, 7270, 7271, 7272, 7273-7304, 7305, 7306-7315, 7316, 7317, 7318-7322 of 2011)
Chakas Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & others Respondent(s), decided on 8/24/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — what would be proper, adequate, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the appellant for the land acquired by the respondent State — in question — appeals filed for enhancement of compensation — the acquired land is situated on the main Ambala-Chandigarh Highway — the evidence of government officials reflects that the land acquired have great Industrial potential as more than 80-85 big industries have already set up their factories in the close vicinity to the acquired land — the Supreme Court opined to fix the base price @ Rs.4,08,000/- per acre with deduction of 10% on the said amount — the Reference Court is directed to recalculate the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants and all other land owners whose lands have been acquired and to pay them the remainder amount — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 560(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 66 of 2007 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 67 of 2007)
Devendra Kumar Tyagi & others Petitioner(s) Vs. State of U.P. & others Respondent(s), decided on 8/23/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4,6, 5-A, 17(1) and 17(4) — whether the Notification dated 18.12.2007 issued by the respondents under Section 6 read with Section 17 (1) of the LA Act is within the period of limitation as contemplated by proviso (ii) to Section 6 (1) of the LA Act — whether the respondent is justified in invoking the urgency provision under Section 17(1) and excluding the application of Section 5-A in terms of Section 17(4) of the LA Act for acquisition of the land for the development of the Leather City Project — the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.12.2007 which were found clearly beyond the period of limitation of one year starting from the date of publication of Notification (04.07.2006) under Section 4 of the LA Act — the construction of the Leather City Project for public purpose, which contemplate the development of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas, by their intrinsic nature and character require the investment of time of a few years in their planning, execution and implementation. Therefore, the Land Acquisition for said public purpose does not justify the invoking of urgency provisions under the LA Act. Moreover, the government functionary proceeded at very slow pace prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 and post the issuance of the Notification under Section 4, for acquisition of the land for construction of the Leather City Project. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the LA Act, thereby, depriving the appellants of their valuable right to raise objections under section 5-A of the LA Act — impugned Notifications under sections 4 & 6 of the LA Act quashed — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 567(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 2432 of 2005)
Gajanan and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra & another Respondent(s), decided on 4/20/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 54 — appeal filed under — against the order of the Reference Court enhancing the Land Acquisition compensation — the High Court partly allowed the appeal and the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court was substantially reduced — hence, the appeal — the High Court rejected two sale instances by making a cryptic observation that the lands were situated at considerable distance. Also the High Court did not assign any cogent reasons for reducing the amount of compensation in lieu of the loss of business and in lieu of the damage to structure, plant and machinery etc — impugned judgment set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal filed by the respondents — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 569(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 6229 of 2011)
State of Madhya Pradesh & another Appellant(s) Vs. Medha Patkar & others Respondent(s), decided on 8/2/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy — benefits of — acquisition of land for excavation and construction of canals — challenged — the High Court restrained the State of Madhya Pradesh or any other statutory authority of further acquisition of land or for any excavation or any construction of the canal network till the CAD Plans submitted to the MoEF are scrutinized by the committee of experts and clearance is granted by the said Ministry and further directed the appellant-State Government to provide rehabilitation and resettlement benefits for Narmada Valley Projects to the canal affected persons/families of Indira Sagar and Omkareshwar projects — hence, the appeal — whether the canal affected persons can be put at par with the oustees of submergence area — no — the State of Madhya Pradesh amended R & R Policy deleting the words “which is required for project related constructions of canal or government project colony.” Thus, the State of M.P. does not give the same R & R package to the canal affected persons as those affected by submergence — the Land AcquisitionCollector is directed to reconsider the market value of canal affected persons as if Section 4 Notification in respect of the same has been issued on date of the judgment and make the supplementary Awards in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1894 — appeal disposed.

2011 SCCL.COM 579(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos.7301-7302 of 2003 With Civil Appeal No. 836 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 6264-6265 of 2011)
Delhi Development Authority Appellant Vs. S.S. Aggarwal and others Respondents, decided on 8/2/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 18, 54 — appeals under — by the assignees — re-fixation of market value of the acquired lands — the market value of the acquired land fixed by the Reference Court was enhanced from Rs.102/- to Rs.7,390/- per square yard — hence, the appeals — even though in terms of the assignment deeds, S.S. Aggarwal and others became entitled to seek substitution before the Land Acquisition Collector, they neither sought impleadment in the award proceedings nor produced the assignment deeds to show that the landowners had transferred the right to receive compensation — no explanation as to why the assignees chose to keep the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court and the High Court in dark about the execution of the assignment deeds by the landowners — impugned judgment set aside and the matter is remitted to the Reference Court for fresh determination of the compensation payable to the landowners and/or assignees after deciding the issue of locus of the assignees to claim compensation — appeals disposed.

2011 SCCL.COM 580(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (Civil) No. 1292 of 2010 In Civil Appeal No. 973 of 2007)
Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. Petitioner Vs. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. & other Respondents, decided on 8/24/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4,6,11 and 17(1) — acquisition of land under the provisions of — the Government of Uttar Pradesh framed the land policy for allotment of land in residential area to the extent of 40% of the area of the land acquired from the land owners — Shri Manohar Lal-applicant made an application to allot him the land of his choice, which stood rejected by the Authority, however, he was allotted the land as per the direction of the Hon’ble Chief Minister in the commercial area — the Supreme Court quashed the said allotment — review application filed — the land Policy did not provide the allotment of land of the choice of the tenure-holder. It was not permissible for any Authority to make the allotment in commercial area, as allotment could be made only in residential area — the applicant did not comply with the allotment letters rather he made attempts to get the land of his choice in commercial area and approached the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who was not the competent Authority under the law for allotment of the land — review application dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 581(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2009)
M/s. Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & another Appellant(s) Vs. State of U.P. & another Respondent(s), decided on 8/18/2011.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Ganguly, J:- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 6,11,17 — when the Government, in exercise of its emergency powers under Section 17 acquires lands, which have since vested in the State, can such an acquisition proceeding lapse and consequently the land can be transferred to the owners/persons interested in the event of default by the State, in complying with the provisions of Section 11A of the Act — to consider — acquisition of lands — even after a lapse of more than three and a half years after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, no award had been made and published — the requirement of payment under section 17(3A) is in the nature of condition precedent clamped by the statute before taking possession under emergency acquisition by the State — the provision of section 17(3A) indicates mandatory compliance and has been enacted to prevent deprivation of property rights guaranteed under Article 300 A, thus, taking over a possession of land without complying with the requirement of section 17(3A) is clearly illegal and in clear violation of the statutory provision which automatically violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A — the judgment of the High Court set aside and the Collector is directed to fix the compensation with regard to the value of the appellant’s land as on the date of filing of the writ petition — appeal allowed. Swatanter Kumar, J:- Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 — sections 11, 17 — non-payment of compensation after acquisition of land under section 17(3A) — whether the provisions of Sections 17(3A) and 11A of the Act are mandatory or directory and to what effect — whether the provisions of Section 11A of the Act are applicable to the acquisition of land under Section 17 of the Act — once the acquired land has vested in the Government in terms of Section 16 or 17(1) of the Act, possession of which has already been taken, such land is incapable of being re-vested or reverted to the owners/persons interested therein, for lack of any statutory provision for the same under the Act — the provisions of Section 17(3A) suggest that the said provision is mandatory but, as no consequences of default have been prescribed by the Legislature in that provision, thus, it will hardly be permissible for the Court to read into the said provision any drastic consequences much less lapsing of entire acquisition proceedings — the Supreme Court held that Section 11A of the Act has no application to the acquisition proceedings conducted under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act — the Government/acquiring authority is directed to pay interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of the notification till the date of payment of 80% of the estimated compensation to the claimants — appeal dismissed. Conclusion:- in view of the divergence of opinion, the matter placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger Bench.

2011 SCCL.COM 590(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 6127-6128 of 2011 With C.A. Nos. 6132-6171 of 2011)
Valliyammal & another Appellant(s) Vs. Spl. Tahsildar (Laq.) & another Respondent(s), decided on 8/1/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — compulsory acquisition of land — the judgments/orders of the High Court reducing the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court — under challenge — the High Court ignored its own finding that the acquired land was situated in the vicinity of the residential colonies developed by the Board. Therefore, the High Court could have, at best, applied 1/3rd deduction towards development cost and not 40% deduction towards development charges — the land is semi-urban and has huge potential for being developed as housing sites and the High Court should have added 10% per annum escalation in the price specified in the sale deeds relied upon for fixing market value of the acquired land — majority of the appellants have been deprived of their entire landholding and they have waited for 14 to 20 years for getting the compensation — the Supreme Court fixed the market value of the acquired land and also held that the appellants are entitled to solatium, interest and other statutory benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Act — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 592(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2672 of 2004)
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer Appellant Vs. Maharani Biswal & others Respondent(s), decided on 8/24/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — determination of compensation for the lands acquired — whether the assessment and determination of compensation awarded to the respondents for acquisition of their land and increasing it from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- per acre is on the higher side and is a proper reflection of the market price of the land — to consider — the Supreme Court found that the High Court has not considered the oral evidence and also not properly analysed the documentary evidence available on record — impugned judgment set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for decision afresh on the basis of both, oral and documentary evidence — appeal disposed.

2011 SCCL.COM 613(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 5938 of 2007 With CA Nos.6024 and 6025 of 2007 with C.A. Nos. 1931, 1932 and 1933 of 2008)
Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Appellant Vs. Gobinda Chandra Makal & another Respondent(s), decided on 9/2/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — determination of compensation for acquisition — the Supreme Court directed to reduce the compensation to ` 67,000/- per cottah for plot nos.62 and 42 and maintain the compensation at the rate of ` 60,000/- per cottah in regard to plot no.272 to the first respondent alongwith the statutory benefits, that is, solatium, additional amount and interest in accordance with the provisions of the LA Act — appeals partly allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 625(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 304-305 of 2005)
A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & others Respondent(s), decided on 9/15/2011.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 6 — declaration under — acquisition of land for public purpose — writ petition filed challenging the validity of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the declaration was not made within the period prescribed under Section 6 of the Act — allowed — hence, the appeals — the Supreme Court opined that if the land owners were really aggrieved by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, they ought to have challenged the same immediately after the declaration under Section 6 was made — no reason to interfere with the acquisition proceedings, which had been challenged after more than two years of declaration under Section 6 of the Act — impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench quashed and set aside — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 626(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.7784 of 2011)
Shri Ambya Kalya Mhatre (d) Through legal heirs & others Appellant(s) Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on12/9/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 18 — reference to Court — whether in a reference made to the Reference Court under section 18 of the Act, the land owner is barred from amending the amount claimed in the reference application and seeking higher compensation; and even if he could seek amendment, whether such application should be made within the period of limitation — where the landowner has sought increase in compensation for only the land, in the application under section 18 of the Act, whether he can seek increase in compensation for the trees or structures also, before the Reference Court — where compensation is awarded for the land, whether no compensation can be awarded for trees or well separately — to consider — the period of limitation in section 18 of the Act has nothing to do with specifying the amount of compensation claimed. Therefore if the reference is in regard to objection to the amount of compensation, the Reference Court can permit any application for amendment of the claim relating to compensation — the Supreme Court found that the determination of market value was not with reference to the yield. Nor was the determination of market value in regard to the land with reference to the value of any orchard but was with reference to vacant agricultural land, thus held that the value of the trees could be added to the value of the land — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 633(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal Nos. 5195-5196 of 2004)
Jeet Singh & another Appellant(s) Vs. Union of India & others Respondent(s), decided on 9/15/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 11A — acquisition of land — challenged — on the ground that the award made in respect of the land in question was made in violation of the provisions of Section 11A — dismissed — hence, the appeal — the material facts on record showed that the land owners, i.e. the appellants made all possible efforts to delay the proceedings — the Supreme Court opined that the acquisition proceedings cannot be permitted to lapse, especially when the Land Acquisition Collector had acted promptly after getting a certified copy of the order whereby the stay granted was vacated — nothing produced on record that the Land Acquisition Collector had received any communication that the stay granted on 12th February, 1999 had been vacated and, therefore, he was absolutely right in not taking any action for proceeding further for making an award till 27th March, 2003 — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 692(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 6662-6670 of 2002 With Civil Appeal Nos. 6671-6676 of 2002)
Vasanth Sreedhar Kulkarni and others with Mumtaz Begum Imam Husen Maribalkar and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Karnataka and others Respondent(s), decided on 10/14/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 — section 17(1) and 19(1) — whether appellants had the locus to question the allotment of sites to the private respondents despite the fact that they claim to have sold the acquired land and whether the purchasers were entitled to contest writ petitions filed by the allottees of the acquired land — to consider — writ petitions filed questioning the allotment of sites by the BDA — the learned Single Judge declared that the erstwhile landowners do not have the locus to challenge the allotment of sites because the writ petitions filed by them questioning the notifications issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) of the 1987 Act had been dismissed and the acquired land had vested in the BDA. The Division Bench also held that the State Government did not have the power to denotify the acquired land by issuing notification under Section 19(7) — hence, the appeals — the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that Panchnamas evidencing take over of possession were fabricated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and entries in the record of rights were manipulated by the concerned revenue authorities — the Supreme Court held that possession of the acquired land had been taken by the SpecialLand Acquisition Officer in accordance with law and neither the BDA had the jurisdiction to make a recommendation for denotification of the acquired land nor the State Government could issue notification under Section 19(7) of the 1987 Act — appeals dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 701(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8643 of 2011)
R. Indira Saratchandra Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & others Respondents, decided on 10/14/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 11A — whether the acquisition of the appellant’s land lapsed on account of non-passing of an award within the period specified in Section 11A — to consider — acquisition of land was challenged — the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition of the writ petitioners’ land will be deemed to have lapsed because the award was passed after more than two years of the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. However, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge — hence, the appeal — the Collector is obliged to make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration. If no award is made within that period, the acquisition proceedings automatically lapse — impugned judgment of the Division Bench set aside and the order passed by the learned Single Judge restored — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 714(Case/Appeal No:  Civil Appeal No. 5475 of 2007 With Civil Appeal Nos. 5477, 5485, 5484, 5479, 5482, 5478, 5481, 5480 & 5476 of 2007)
Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Appellant(s) Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon Respondent, decided on11/1/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — compensation for acquisition of lands — reduction of — in challenge — there was no valid reason for the High Court in interfering with the fixation of market value by the Reference Court for Jirayat land at the rate of Rs.3 lacs and for Bagayat land at the rate of Rs.6 lacs per hectare — impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and the award passed by the Reference Court restored — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 720(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 9353-54 of 2011)
J & K Housing Board & another Appellant(s) Vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & others Respondent(s), decided on 11/4/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 — sections 4, 5-A, 9, 17-A — notification for taking possession of the land for public purpose — was challenged — the High Court allowed the petition of the respondents with liberty to file their objections afresh within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of the said order — hence, the appeal — whether the Collector has fully complied with the mandates and procedures provided in sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 4 — the conditions prescribed in Section 4(1)(a) and (b) had been complied with except Section 4(1)(c) which have not been followed — the notification was duly published in the Government Gazette which satisfies sub-section (b) of Section 4 and though a corrigendum was issued for enlarging the area of acquisition this corrigendum was not published in any newspaper — the Supreme Court held that merely because the land owners failed to submit their objections within 15 days after the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the State Act, the authorities cannot be permitted to claim that it need not be strictly resorted to — the reasonings and the conclusion of the learned single Judge quashing the acquisition proceedings from the stage of Section 5-A and further direction to file their objections afresh within 15 days of the receipt of copy of his order upheld — appeals dismissed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 723(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2003)
Ramji Veerji Patel & others Appellant(s) Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer & others Respondent(s), decided on 11/2/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4(1), 6 — notification and declaration under — in challenge — acquisition of land for expansion of depot — whether the consideration of the appellants’ objections to the acquisition of their land by the Government suffers from any illegality or irrationality — no — the appellants’ land is adjacent to the existing depot of the Corporation having easy access to the main road and having regard to the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired, namely, expansion of existing depot, particularly, for a workshop, the appellants’ land is found more suitable, therefore, the manner in which the decision has been taken by the Government regarding suitability of the appellants’ land for expansion of the depot of the Corporation is not vitiated by any error of law nor it is irrational or founded on the extraneous reasons — the Supreme Court held that Corporation and the TNSTC fall within the definition of Section 3(cc), however, in view of the definition of the `company’ in Section 3(e) which excludes government company, the Corporation or for that matter its successor TNSTC does not fall within the definition of the `company’ and, therefore, is not covered by Part VII of the Act — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 737(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3033 of 2008 With C.A. Nos. 3095, 3114, 3105, 3102, 3101, 3099, 3112, 3097, 3100, 3109, 3094, 3093, 3110, 3098, 3103, 3096, 3111, 3107, 3115, 3113, 3117, 3108, 3104 & 3116 of 2008)
National Fertilizers Ltd. Appellant Vs. Jagga Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. & another Respondent(s), decided on 11/15/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — market value of acquired land — determination of — order of the Division Bench of the High Court in determining the compensation of Rs.120/- per square yard for the land acquired upheld — appeals dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 781(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 10878 of 2011)
M/s Kamal Trading Pvt Ltd (Now known as Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) Appellant Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors Respondents, decided on 12/13/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — sections 4 & 6 — notification and declaration under — in challenge — section 5A(2) — violation of — a writ petition filed for quashing of of notifications acquiring the floors for public purpose on the grounds that the report submitted by the Second Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated due to violation of the rule of hearing enshrined in Section 5A(2) of the LA Act and non application of mind by the concerned officer to the objections filed under Section 5A(1) of the LA Act — dismissed — hence, the appeal — no hearing was given to the appellant resulting in non compliance of Section 5A of the LA Act, which is the appellant’s substantive right — the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act published in the Government Gazette set aside — appeal disposed.