2013 (4) TMI 17 - SC - Indian Laws

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act, Notification was issued for the acquisition of the lands - Section 11 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the market value of the acquired lands - Enhanced compensation by the Reference Court. Lands in Village of Harthala Held that - The scope of interference by this Court was delineated by the decision in Kanta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar wherein this Court held that there was an element of guess work inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value of the acquired land. Assessment of market value thus made should not be disturbed by the Supreme Court. We are of the view that the sum of Rs. 80 per square meter awarded as compensation in these cases is just compensation paid to the land owners. Once we have thus found the compensation to be just, there arises no occasion for this Court to interfere with the decision of the High Court restoring the award of the Land Acquisition Officer - All the appeals relating to Harthala have only to be dismissed. Lands acquired in village of Mukkarabbpur Held that - We are not inclined to grant any of the reliefs that he has asked for, then we may direct that the amounts paid by way of compensation pursuant to the judgment of the Reference Court need not be recovered and the securities furnished by some of the appellants need not be enforced. This prayer is contested by the learned counsel for the respondents. This request of Shri. Varma appears to be reasonable. The land acquisition in question is of two decades old, and it is plausible that the landowners have utilized the compensation amount paid for one purpose or the other. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to put an extra burden of repayment on them. Therefore, while dismissing the appeals, we clarify that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we restrain the respondents from recovering the amounts paid as compensation or enforcing security offered while withdrawing the compensation amount pursuant to order passed by the Reference Court - The appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of compensation for lands acquired in the villages of Harthala and Mukkarrabpur under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Adequacy of compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and the Reference Court.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's precedent in Gafar and Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority.
4. Procedural infirmities in the High Court's handling of appeals, including non-listing of cases and substitution of legal representatives.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Enhancement of Compensation for Lands Acquired:
The appeals were filed against the High Court of Allahabad's orders regarding the enhancement of compensation for lands acquired in Harthala and Mukkarrabpur. The landowners sought higher compensation than what was awarded by the LAO, claiming the market value was significantly higher due to the lands' proximity to the city of Moradabad.

2. Adequacy of Compensation Assessed by the LAO and Reference Court:
For Harthala, the LAO assessed the market value at Rs. 80 per sq. meter, which the Reference Court enhanced to Rs. 270 per sq. meter. For Mukkarrabpur, the LAO fixed the compensation at Rs. 92.59 per sq. meter, which the Reference Court increased to Rs. 350 per sq. meter. The High Court, however, restored the LAO's original assessment in both cases, citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Gafar's case.

3. Applicability of Supreme Court's Precedent in Gafar's Case:
The Supreme Court in Gafar's case had previously examined the method of valuation adopted by the LAO and the Reference Court's enhancement of compensation. It concluded that the evidence relied upon by the Reference Court was not reliable, justifying the High Court's decision to restore the LAO's award. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court's approach was correct and did not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

4. Procedural Infirmities in the High Court's Handling of Appeals:
The appellants argued that the High Court did not list some appeals, and others were disposed of in the absence of their counsel due to illness. Additionally, there were pending applications for substitution of legal representatives of deceased landowners. The Supreme Court acknowledged these procedural issues but emphasized that the High Court's decisions were consistent with the precedent set in Gafar's case. Therefore, remanding the matters back to the High Court would be a mere formality.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the High Court's decisions were aligned with the precedent established in Gafar's case. The Court also restrained the respondents from recovering the compensation amounts already paid or enforcing security offered by the appellants. Costs were made easy, considering the long duration since the land acquisition and the potential utilization of the compensation by the landowners.