C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007
-1-
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7312 OF 2009
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.11118 of 2007]
KAMRUL ISAM ALVI ....Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. ....Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Verma, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant’s land admeasuring 3.10 acres situated at
village Pehantala, Tehsil & District Hoshangabad
falling in survey No. 15, was acquired for
construction of Bagda Branch Canal. A notification
was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short `the Act’) on 9.11.1973. The
Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated
21.2.1975 determining the amount of compensation
payable to the appellant. He assessed the
compensation at Rs. 6,523.95. The said compensation
was accepted by the appellant under protest and
C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007
-2-
reference was sought to be made to the Reference
Court by filing an application under Section 18 of
the Act.
3. Initially, when the appellant filed his application
praying for reference to the Civil Court before the
Land Acquisition Officer a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was
claimed on account of water reservoir and sluice
gate constructed thereon, which was in addition to a
claim of compensation of Rs. 15,500/- in respect of
the acquired land. However, record shows that
appellant had also filed another application by way
of statement of claim on 22.3.78 before the Land
Acquisition Officer, Hoshangabad, praying therein
that compensation for water reservoir and sluice
gate installed thereon should be payable at
Rs.6,46,579.95.
4. Accepting the contention of the appellant that the
Land Acquisition Officer had not awarded
compensation with respect to the water reservoir and
the sluice gate, the Reference Court, while noting
that it cannot exercise the original jurisdiction of
Land Acquisition Officer, vide order dated
05.07.1983, remitted the matter to the Land
Acquisition Officer for fixation of compensation
C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007
-3-
with respect to water reservoir and sluice gate.
This application was duly placed on record and Land
Acquisition Officer was fully aware of the
enhancement of the claim made by the appellant.
5. However, the Land Acquisition Officer vide his award
dated 28.10.1983 even though considered that
appellant had claimed Rs. 6,46,579.95, as
compensation towards water reservoir and sluice
gate but in his wisdom accepting the evaluation
report of the Irrigation Ministry and rejecting that
of an Engineer he awarded a sum of Rs.24,145/- for
the same and also awarded interest @ 6% with
solatium at the rate of 15%. Thus, the total amount
came to be Rs.43,463.75.
6. Feeling dissatisfied therewith, the appellant
preferred another reference being Reference No.
46/84.
7. It is also pertinent to mention here that before the
Reference Court, that is, First Additional District
Judge, Hoshangabad in Reference Case No. 46/84 in
the statement of claim filed by the appellant on
24.11.1984, he had specifically claimed a sum of
Rs.6,46,579.95 as compensation for the water
reservoir and sluice gate installed therein.
C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007
-4-
8. Order dated 05.07.1983 passed by Reference Court
makes it clear that award was contested mainly on
two grounds. Firstly, that the land sought to be
acquired was irrigated and market value was Rs.
5000/- per acre and secondly, the compensation
regarding Bandhan i.e. water reservoir and sluice
gate should have been fixed at Rs. 6,46,579.95. The
Reference Court was of the opinion that the
compensation for the water reservoir and sluice gate
had not been assessed, therefore, matter deserved to
be remanded to the Land Acquisition Officer.
9. Following is the relevant and operative part of the
order dated 5.7.1983:
“In the result the reference is sent
back to the Land Acquisition Officer
with direction that it shall fix the
compensation regarding the acquired
Bandhan and gates. The evidence
adduced in the Court will be read as
evidence before the Land Acquisition
Officer after fixing the compensation
it is contested by the applicant then
the Land Acquisition Officer may again
make reference as per law. Parties to
appear before Land Acquisition Officer.”
( Sd/- )
First Addl.Judge to the
Court of District Judge.
Hoshangabad.
C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007
-5-
10. After remand by Reference Court to the Land
Acquisition Officer, fresh award came to be passed
on 26.10.1983. In the same, despite specific
direction issued by Reference Court, as noted
earlier, the amount of compensation for water
reservoir and sluice gate was again fixed only at
Rs. 43,463/-. The appellant herein once again filed
application under Section 18 of the Act praying for
reference to the Civil Court for grant of adequate
and proper compensation for the said reservoir and
sluice gate.
11. The Reference Court vide order dated 20.06.1994,
after considering the evidence available on record
and relying on a decision of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana in the case of Radhey Shyam vs.
State of Haryana AIR 1981 (P&H) 57 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.
12. Feeling aggrieved by the said order/award passed in
Reference Case No. 46/84 (old No. 1/77) on
20.6.1994, respondent -the State of Madhya Pradesh
C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007
-6-
preferred an appeal in the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur under Section 54 of the Act.
13. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 2.4.2007,
a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Jabalpur was pleased to set aside the award dated
20.06.94 passed by Reference Court in favour of
the appellant and the compensation of Rs.43,463 for
water reservoir and sluice gate, as was fixed by the
Land Acquisition Officer after remand, has been
upheld.
14. Hence this appeal.
15. Critical examination and perusal of the impugned
order passed by the High Court shows that it
proceeded on the assumption that appellant had not
claimed amount of Rs. 6,46,579.95 as compensation
for water reservoir and sluice gate and he had
confined his claim only at Rs. 25,000/- for the
same.
16. It appears to us that the learned Government
Advocate, who appeared before the Division Bench,
had probably due to bona fide mistake not brought
to the notice of the Court, appellant’s
application/statement of claim dated 22.3.1978
C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007
-7-
claiming specifically a sum of Rs. 6,46,579/- as
compensation for water reservoir and sluice gate.
17. Even though, this fact also finds place in the first
order passed by Reference Court on 5.7.1983 wherein,
in the second part of the said order, which is
relevant for the purpose of deciding the said
appeal, it has been mentioned as under:
“The applicant has contested the award
on two grounds firstly the acquired
land was irrigated one and the works
value of it at the time of acquisition
was Rs. 5000/- per acre hence he is
entitled to Rs. 15,500/- as
compensation for the land, and
secondly, the land acquisition officer
has not fixed the compensation
regarding the Bandhan and its sluice
gates fixed in the said Bandhan for
which the appellant is entitled to
Rs.6,46,579.95 P as compensation.”18. It is not disputed before us that against the said
order passed by Reference Court on 5.7.1983, no
appeal was preferred by the State and the said order
had attained finality. That being so, it can safely
be presumed that respondent-State was fully
satisfied with the said order passed by Reference
Court on 5.7.1983. In the said order, it is
categorically mentioned by the learned Judge of the
C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007
-8-
Reference Court that the amount claimed byappellant for water reservoir and sluice gate be
assessed at Rs.6,46,579.95.
19. Once this order came to be passed and matter stood
remitted to the Land Acquisition Officer, obviously,
the parties went to trial with the clear
understanding that what has been claimed by the
appellant herein for the water reservoir and sluice
gate was as mentioned hereinabove and not at the
rate of Rs.25,000/- only as was claimed earlier.
20. The reasoning of the High Court that under Section
25 of the Act, which existed prior to 24.9.1984,
only those amounts would be payable to the appellant
which have been claimed specifically, does not
appear to be borne out from the record. In the
teeth of the order dated 5.7.1983, appellant’s
application dated 22.3.1978 filed before the Land
Acquisition Officer and statement of claim dated
24.11.1984 filed by the appellant, it was crystal
clear that a sum of Rs.6,46,579.95 was claimed for
water reservoir and sluice gate. Thus, the
reasoning of the High Court does not appear to be
legally tenable.
C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007
-9-21. Obviously, it appears to be a bona-fide mistake on
the part of the learned Government Advocate who did
not notice the Order dated 5.7.1983 and the
appellant’s earlier application filed before the
Land Acquisition Officer on 22.3.1978 wherein a
specific claim was made for awarding compensation
for the water reservoir and sluice gate at Rs.
6,46,579.95. That being so, we are of the opinion
that looking to the matter from any angle, the
impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law. It is
hereby set aside and quashed. The award of the
Reference Court dated 20.6.1994 in Reference Case
No. 46/84 (old No. 1/77) is hereby restored with all
consequential benefits as mentioned therein.
22. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent
with costs throughout. Counsel’s fee Rs. 10,000/-.
……………J.
[V.S. Sirpurkar]
…………..
.J.
[Deepak Verma] New Delhi. November 04, 2009. C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007 - 10 -