2001 (2) TMI 1032 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Fixing of compensation rates under the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Allegation of fraud by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
3. Lack of opportunity for the Appellants to adduce evidence in the proceedings.
4. Remittal of the matter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-fixing compensation.

Analysis:
1. The Appeal challenged the fixing of compensation rates under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of land. The Appellants contested the rates set in the Award, claiming dissatisfaction with the compensation fixed at different rates for land inside and outside the municipal area. The Appellants, being the beneficiaries of the acquisition, were unable to demand a reference under Section 18 due to Section 50 of the Act. The Writ Petition challenging the Award was dismissed by the impugned Judgment.

2. The Appellants alleged that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had committed fraud in fixing the compensation rate. The basis of this claim was discrepancies in prices within the Agreement used to determine compensation. However, the Court found no merit in this submission as the Agreement was a registered document with the correct price endorsed by the Sub-Registrar, validating the price relied upon.

3. It was argued that the Appellants were not given an opportunity to present evidence during the proceedings for determining the compensation amount. Although the Appellants were aware of the proceedings, no formal notice was issued to them, and they were not allowed to adduce evidence. The Court held that Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act mandates the opportunity for the concerned party to appear and present evidence for compensation determination. As this was not done in this case, the matter was sent back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-fixing the compensation.

4. Consequently, the Appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-determination of the compensation after providing the Appellant with an opportunity to present evidence. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was directed to reconsider the compensation within six months. Any other party desiring to present further evidence was also permitted to do so. The Court clarified that amounts already disbursed as per previous orders would not be recalled but adjusted in the final compensation amount. It was also specified that this decision would not impact any ongoing legal challenges related to the acquisition. The Appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.