2003 (3) TMI 772 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Nature of the power exercised by the Commissioner under the proviso to Section 11(1).
3. Applicability of Section 15A of the Land Acquisition Act.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act:
The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in reappreciating the material on record and issuing directions to the Collector to refix the market value and compensation. The High Court held that the Commissioner could reappreciate the material relied on by the Collector and dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court, however, opined that the Commissioner's power under the proviso to Section 11(1) is limited to granting or not granting approval and does not extend to reappreciating evidence or issuing directions, which is an appellate function.

Nature of the power exercised by the Commissioner under the proviso to Section 11(1):
The Supreme Court emphasized that the inquiry under Section 11 is quasi-judicial, and the determination of compensation should be based on the Collector's satisfaction. The term "approval" in the proviso to Section 11(1) is administrative and does not equate to appellate power. The Commissioner's role is to confirm, ratify, assent, sanction, or consent to the proposed award, not to reverse findings or issue directions to the Collector.

Applicability of Section 15A of the Land Acquisition Act:
The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 15A provides the appropriate Government with the power to call for records or proceedings of the Collector before any award is made and to pass orders or issue directions. This power is akin to appellate power and is confined to the appropriate Government, not the Commissioner. If the Commissioner finds the Collector's award unacceptable, he can bring it to the notice of the appropriate Government to exercise its power under Section 15A, but he cannot exercise this power himself.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Commissioner's power under the proviso to Section 11(1) is administrative and limited to granting or not granting approval. The Commissioner cannot sit in appeal against the proposed award made by the Collector. The matter was referred to a larger Bench to settle the law, considering conflicting views in previous judgments.