{"id":18853,"date":"1994-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994"},"modified":"2015-01-25T00:53:15","modified_gmt":"2015-01-24T19:23:15","slug":"kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994","title":{"rendered":"Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (5) 672, \t JT 1994 (5)\t113<\/div>\n
Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKERALA\t STATE\t HOUSING  BD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMAPRIYA   HOTELS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/07\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (5) 672\t  JT 1994 (5)\t113\n 1994 SCALE  (3)565\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nK.   RAMASWAMY,\t J.-  The two appeals arise  from  the\tsame
\njudgment, the first one by the Housing Board and the  second
\nby the State, respondents before the Kerala High Court in OP
\nNo. 704 of 1982 dated 26-7-1989.  The respondent-company had
\nentered into an agreement on 30-5-1977 agreeing that  “first
\nparty  (respondent-company) is satisfied of their  own\twill
\nthat   on  a  consideration  of\t all  relevant\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances and the prevailing conditions Rs 1100  (Rupees
\neleven\thundred\t only) per cent including  all\timprovements
\nsituated on this land will be a fair value and proper  price
\nfor  the  property”.  “The first party will  accept  without
\nprotest\t on  their  behalf  value-compensation\tat  Rs\t1100
\n(Rupees eleven hundred only) per cent inclusive of  solatium
\nand  value  for\t all  structures  and  improvements  on\t the
\nproperty  to  be acquired and referred to  in  the  schedule
\nhereunder”,   “will   not   dispute   the   declaration\t  of
\ncompensation awarded”.\t“Entering into this agreement as  it
\nwill  be  for his own benefit and he stands to gain  by\t the
\nimplementation\tof  the said agreement.”  The  second  party
\n(Land Acquisition Collector) “is empowered to make an award”
\n“at  the rate of Rs II 00 (Rupees eleven hundred  only)\t per
\ncent inclusive of solatium and value for all
\n 675<\/span>
\nstructures  and\t ‘improvements in and upon the\tsaid  land”.
\nPursuant  thereto  notification under Section  3(1)  of\t the
\nKerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (Act 21 of 1962 for  short
\n“the  Act”)  was published in the  State  Gazette  acquiring
\n2.69.11 hectares in Survey Nos. 1759 part and 1127 parts  in
\nTrivandrum   for  the  housing\tscheme\tenvisaged   by\t the
\nappellants.   Possession of the land was taken\ton  1-2-1978
\nbut  since  declaration under Section 6\t was  not  published
\nwithin\ttwo  years from the date of publication\t of  Section
\n3(1)  notification,  on 12-6-1979 fresh\t notification  under
\nSection 3(1) was published.  The respondents questioned\t the
\nnotification  by filing a writ petition on  10-8-1979  which
\nwas   disposed\t of  on\t 13-10-1980  upholding\t the   fresh
\nnotification.\tA declaration under Section 6 was  published
\non  18-1-1981  and a notice under Section 9(3) to  make\t the
\naward  was served on the respondents pursuant to  which\t the
\nrespondents   laid   claim  at\tRs  30,000  per\t  cent\t for
\ncompensation.  The District Collector made an award on 21-8-
\n1981  at Rs 1100 per cent and on 19-9-1981  the\t respondents
\nfiled  an application under Section 20 for reference to\t the
\ncivil court.  Since the reference was not made writ petition
\nOP  No. 704 of 1982, came to be filed on 26-1-1982 which  as
\nstated\tearlier\t was  allowed by the High  Court  under\t the
\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2.The  High Court found that the property under\t acquisition
\nalong  with other properties, was hypothecated by  equitable
\nmortgage  to  Indian Bank, branch at  Trivandrum,  which  as
\nmortgagee was entitled to claim an interest in\tcompensation
\npayable to the mortgagor.  Since the bank was not a party to
\nthe  contract,\tno award under Section 16 of the  Act  could
\nhave  been  made.  It also found that, by operation  of\t the
\nproviso\t to sub-section (1) of Section 16, since four  years
\nhad  elapsed from the date of the agreement,  namely,  13-5-
\n1977,  the  award  based  on  the  agreement  became   void.
\nHowever,  to avoid delay since award had already been  made,
\nthe  High  Court directed the Collector to refer  the  claim
\nunder Section 20 to the civil court without reference to the
\nagreement  which  had  become void.   Accordingly  the\twrit
\npetition was allowed.  Shri R.F. Nariman, the learned Senior
\nCounsel for the Housing Board contended that the view of the
\nHigh  Court  is clearly illegal.   Section  16\tcontemplates
\nexecution of an agreement between the owner of the land\t and
\nthe  Land  Acquisition Officer to fix market  value  at\t the
\nagreed\trate  which binds the parties.\tIt is  open  to\t the
\nrespondents  to\t waive the requirement of  entering  into  a
\ncontract by all parties.  Even otherwise the respondents had
\nsuppressed  the\t fact of hypothecation to have\texecuted  an
\nequitable  mortgage of the property in favour of the  Indian
\nBank  claiming that respondent alone had exclusive title  to
\nthe property, the respondent company is estopped to  contend
\nthat under Section 16 no award can be made in the absence of
\nthe  mortgagee\tas  a  party  to  the  agreement.   He\talso
\ncontended that “such date” referred to in proviso to Section
\n16(1),\tis referable to the date of the\t notification  under
\nSection\t 3(1).\t From the date of  the\tsecond\tnotification
\nwhich  came  to\t be published after  the  execution  of\t the
\ncontract,  the period of four years would begin to run\tfrom
\nthe  date  of the second notification and the  award  having
\nbeen  made within four years from that date,  the  Collector
\nwas within his power to make the award under
\n676<\/span>
\nSection 16 and the finding of the High Court that the  award
\nbecame void after the expiry of four years from the date  of
\nthe  agreement\tis  clearly  erroneous.\t  In  view  of\t the
\nagreement, no reference under Section 18 can be made to\t the
\ncivil  court.  Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned  Senior  Counsel
\nfor the respondents resisted the contentions.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The  first\t question that arises for  consideration  is
\nwhether the phrase “all persons interested agree” in Section
\n16(1) required that each and every party having an  interest
\nin  the\t compensation should necessarily be a party  to\t the
\nagreement.   To appreciate whether this\t broad\tconstruction
\ncould  alone  subserve\tthe legislative\t intent,  should  be
\nconsidered  in the light of the language in Section  16\t and
\npurpose\t  it  seeks  to\t serve\tand  its  effects,   require
\nconsideration.\tSection 16(1) reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “16. (1) If the Collector and all the  persons
\n\t      interested agree, whether before or after\t the
\n\t      date of publication of the notification  under
\n\t      subsection (1) of Section 3, as to the  amount
\n\t      of  compensation to be allowed, the  Collector
\n\t      shall  make  an award under his hand  for\t the
\n\t      same:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided that an agreement executed before the
\n\t      date of publication of the notification  under
\n\t      sub-section  (1)\tof Section 3  shall  not  be
\n\t      binding  on the persons interested  after\t the
\n\t      expiry of four years from such date.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Such   award  shall\t be  filed  in\t the
\n\t      Collector’s office and shall,subject     to
\n\t      the proviso to sub-section (1), be  conclusive
\n\t      evidence, as between the\tGovernment  and\t all
\n\t      persons  interested, of the value of the\tland
\n\t      and the amount of compensation allowed for the
\n\t      same.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.A  reading of sub-section (1) no doubt indicates  that  if
\nthe Collector and all the persons interested agree,  whether
\nbefore or after the date of publication of the\tnotification
\nunder  sub-section  (1)\t of Section 3 as to  the  amount  of
\ncompensation  to  be allowed, the Collector  shall  make  an
\naward under his hand for the same.  It is stated in  Maxwell
\non Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., p. 32 1, that\t two
\nor more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are
\ncoupled\t  together  noscitur  a\t sociis,  they\tare  to\t  be
\nunderstood as used in their cognate sense.  They take, as it
\nwere, their color from each other, that is, the more general
\nis restricted to a sense analogous to the less general.\t  At
\npp. 334 and 335, it is further stated that the effect of the
\nwords  of  analogous  meaning  on each\tother  and  that  of
\nspecific  words\t on the more general one  which\t closes\t the
\nenumeration  of them, as well as of their  subordination  to
\nthe  more general principle gathering the intention  from  a
\nreview\tof  the\t whole enactment and giving  effect  to\t its
\nparamount  object.  At p. 338, it is stated that unless\t the
\ncontrary  intention appears, in statutes passed after  1850,
\nwords  importing the masculine gender include  females,\t the
\nsingular  includes the plural, and the plural the  singular.
\nIn  Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn. at p. 177, it is  stated
\nthat  the  words  of limitation are not to be  read  into  a
\nstatute,  if  it  can  be avoided.   But  in  some  cases  a
\nlimitation may be put on the construction of the wide  terms
\nof  a  statute.\t  At p. 178, it is stated that\tone  of\t the
\nsafest guides to the construction of sweeping general  words
\nwhich  it is difficult to apply in their full literal  sense
\nis  to\texamine\t other\twords of like  import  in  the\tsame
\ninstrument,  and to see what limitations must be imposed  on
\nthem.  At p. 183, it is stated that the
\n 677<\/span>
\nquestion  whether,  when the legislature  has  used  general
\nwords  in  a statute, not following particular\tor  specific
\nwords,\tthose  words are to receive any (and, if  so,  what)
\nlimitation  is\tone  which  may\t sometimes  be\tanswered  by
\nconsidering whether the intention of the legislature on this
\npoint  can be gathered from other parts of the statute.\t  At
\np. 184, it is stated that sometimes by considering the cause
\nand necessity of making the Act, sometimes by comparing\t one
\npart  of  the  Act with another, and  sometimes\t by  foreign
\ncircumstances,\tso  that they have ever been guided  by\t the
\nintent\tof  the legislature, which they\t have  always  taken
\naccording  to the necessity of the matter, and according  to
\nthat which is consonant to, reason and good discretion.\t The
\nstatute\t has to be construed according to the intent of\t the
\nlegislature.   In  Maharashtra\tState  Financial  Corpn.  v.
\nJaycee\tDrugs  and Pharmaceuticals Pvt.\t Ltd.1,<\/a>\t this  Court
\nheld  that  it\tis  settled  rule  of  interpretation\tthat
\nstatutory  provisions should be construed in a manner  which
\nsubserves  the purpose of the enactment and does not  defeat
\nit  and that no part thereof is rendered surplus or  otiose.
\nThe object of Section 16 is that the Collector and the owner
\nof the land should agree for payment of compensation to\t the
\nland acquired after obtaining the approval of the  valuation
\nfrom the District Collector or the Board of Revenue, as\t the
\ncase  may  be, under Section 17 of the Act, with a  view  to
\nmake   the   award  expeditiously  and\tto   avoid   further
\nlitigation,  protraction and prompt payment of\tcompensation
\nto the owner of the land.  It is an enabling provision.\t The
\nperson\tor  persons  interested in  the\t compensation  would
\nalways\tbe  at\tliberty\t to agree by  a\t contract  with\t the
\nCollector  to  make an award in terms thereof.\tIt  is\ttrue
\nthat  Indian  Bank,  Trivandrum Branch was  a  mortgagee  by
\ndeposit of title deeds by the respondent and economic it was
\nnot  a party to the agreement.\tThe object of Section  16(1)
\nis  to\tdetermine  market  value  expeditiously\t and   award
\ncompensation in terms of agreement to avoid needless  delay.
\nTherefore, in the light of the purpose and object of Section
\n16  all\t persons must be interpreted to mean not only  in  a
\nplural\tbut  also singular which would include any  one,  if
\nmore than one person are interested in the compensation,  to
\nmutually  enter into an agreement with the  Collector.\t The
\nagreement  will bind the contracting parties alone  and\t the
\naward made under Section 16(1) may not thereby bind  others.
\nBy  its\t implication,  absence of  other  persons  who\thave
\nsimilar\t interest  in the compensation does not\t render\t the
\nagreement executed by one among them void.  Section 16 is  a
\nbeneficial provision and it is always open to the parties to
\nwaive the mandatory provision of entering into the agreement
\nby all the persons jointly with the Collector under  Section
\n16(1).\t In  Dhirendra Nath Gorai & Subal  Chandra  Shaw  v.
\nSudhir\tChandra\t Ghosh2,<\/a> this Court held that  a  party\t can
\nwaive mandatory procedure.  Accordingly we hold that  though
\nIndian\t Bank\tas  a  mortgagee  was  interested   in\t the
\ncompensation  by operation of Section 73(2) of the  Transfer
\nof  Property  Act to realise the amount due to it  from\t the
\nmortgagor  from the compensation payable  from\thypothecated
\nlands  under  compulsory acquisition, its non-joinder  as  a
\nparty to the agreement does not
\n1    (1991) 2 SCC 637, 651 (para 16)
\n2    (1964) 6 SCR 1001 : AIR 1964 SC 1300
\n678<\/span>
\nrender\tthe  agreement\tvoid nor  become  unenforceable\t nor
\nrenders the jurisdiction of the Collector to make the  award
\nunder  Section 16(1) as illegal or void.  May be, as  stated
\nearlier,  neither the contract nor the award binds the\tnon-
\nparty when it was entered into in an individual capacity  by
\nthe  contracting party.\t The finding of the High Court\tthat
\nno  award  could have been made in  respect  of\t respondent-
\ncompany, therefore, is clearly erroneous and  unsustainable.
\nIt  is\taccordingly  set aside.\t We are\t informed  that\t the
\nIndian\t  Bank\twas  paid of its debt and  its\trequest\t for
\nreference under Section 18 was\t   negatived\t by\t the
\nCollector, which became final.\n<\/p>\n
5.The crucial question whether a period of 4 years envisaged
\nin proviso to Section 16(1) should be reckoned from the date
\nwhen  the  agreement  was  executed or\tfrom  the  date\t the
\npublication  of the notification, under Section\t 3(1)  after
\nthe agreement was executed and what would be the meaning  of
\nthe  words  “from  such\t date”?\t  Before  considering  these
\nquestions,  it is necessary to note few material  facts\t and
\nthe  preexisting law.  Unmended Section 16(1) gave power  to
\nthe   Collector\t  and\tall  persons   interested   in\t the
\ncompensation,  to  agree  for  fixation\t of  the  amount  of
\ncompensation by an award by consent.  It is otherwise  known
\nas statutory agreement.\t There was no limitation  prescribed
\nfor  making  the award by the  Collector.   Sub-section\t (2)
\nmakes  the award conclusive evidence between the  Government
\nand  the  persons agreed of the value of the  land  and\t the
\namount\tof  compensation  allowed for the  same.   In  other
\nwords, by an agreement, the value of the amount gets  pegged
\ndown  under  the agreement, to the date of issuance  of\t the
\nnotification  under  Section 3(1) of the Act, which  is\t the
\nsame  as  Section  4(1) of the Land Acquisition\t Act  (1  of
\n1894),\ta  condition precedent for a declaration  to  follow
\nunder Section 6 of the Act.  The claimant foregoes the right
\nof  reference under Section 18 of the Act.  It is  notorious
\nthat  after  publication of the notification  under  Section
\n4(1)  of  the Central Act and declaration under\t Section  6,
\nyears would roll by before making the award under Section  1
\n1  of the Central Act.\tIn State of Gujarat v. Patil  Raghav
\nNatha3\tthe<\/a> period of limitation under Bombay  Land  Revenue
\nAct  for exercise of the power under Section 65 came up\t for
\nconsideration.\tThis Court held that: (SCC p. 193,para11)
\n\t       “[T]hat\tthere  is no  period  of  limitation
\n\t      prescribed under Section 21 1, but it seems to
\n\t      us plain that this power must be exercised  in
\n\t      reasonable   time\t and  the  length   of\t the
\n\t      reasonable  time\tmust be\t determined  by\t the
\n\t      facts of the case and the nature of the  order
\n\t      which is being revised.”\n<\/p>\n
In  Mansaram v. S.P Pathak4<\/a> this Court held that  the  power
\nmust be exercised “in a reasonable manner and the reasonable
\nexercise  of  the  power  and  it  is  exercised  within   a
\nreasonable time”.  In the context of land acquisition,\tthis
\nCourt in State of M.P v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma5 had held that
\nafter the publication of the notification under Section 4(1)
\nrequiring   particular\t land  in  a   locality,   it\tmust
\nexpeditiously issue “declaration under
\n3 (1969) 2 SCC 187 :(1970) 1 SCR 335
\n4    (1984) 1 SCC 125
\n5    (1966) 3 SCR 557 : AIR 1966 SC 1593
\n 679<\/span>
\nSection 6 to that effect”.  That after pegging the price  by
\nthe  issuance  of the notification under  Section  4(1)\t the
\nGovernment  have no power to issue  successive\tdeclarations
\nunder  Section\t6 in respect of parcels of land\t covered  by
\nnotification   under  Section  4(1)  at\t  different   times.
\nParliament  amended  Section  6\t by  the  Land\t Acquisition
\n(Amendment  and Validation) Act, 1967 and gave power to\t the
\nGovernment to make different declarations from time to\ttime
\nin  respect of different parts of lands covered by the\tsame
\nnotification  under Section 4(1).  However, it introduced  a
\nproviso\t prescribing limitation of 3 years from the date  of
\nthe   publication   of\tthe  notification.   In\t  the\tLand
\nAcquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 it was further reduced  to
\none  year.  Equally Section 11-A was made by 1984  Amendment
\nAct  prescribing  2  years’  limitation\t from  the  date  of
\npublication of the declaration to make the award in  respect
\nof  the\t proceedings  taken under the Act  and\tthe  proviso
\nthereto\t gives further three years to make the award in\t the
\npending\t proceedings  from the date of the  commencement  of
\n1984 Amendment Act.  On expiry thereof, “proceedings for the
\nacquisition of the land shall lapse”.  It is thus clear from
\nthe  legislative mandate that the completion of\t passing  of
\nthe   award   after  the  initiation  of   the\t acquisition
\nproceedings are being unduly delayed and now it is  enjoined
\nto  be done within 2 years from the date of  publication  of
\nthe  declaration  under Section 6.  The\t Kerala\t Legislature
\nrecognising the same situation prevailing under the Act\t the
\nKerala\tLand  Acquisition  Amendment  Act,  1980,   suitably
\namended Sections 3 and 6 of that Act, Section 16(1) was also
\namended.   Preceding thereto a Division Bench of that  court
\nin  Kalyankutti\t Ammal v. State of Kerala6  interpreted\t the
\nagreement  and\tSection 16(1) and held\tthat  the  agreement
\nunder  Section\t16(1) becomes void  after  the\tnotification
\nunder Section 3(1) lapsed.  To give effect to such a  lapsed
\nagreement Section 16(1) was suitably amended and proviso  to
\nSection\t 16(1) was made.  The statement and objects in\tthis
\nbehalf undoubtedly support the contention of the counsel for
\nthe Board that the word, “from such date” would be referable
\nto the date of the publication of notification under Section
\n3(1),  but  in interpreting the effect of  the\tproviso\t the
\ncourt  has  to look into the purpose and the effect  of\t the
\nmain  Section  16(1) on the agreement entered  into  by\t the
\nCollector and the person interested in the compensation.  It
\nis  seen that the agreement ties the owner of the land\twith
\nthe  market value mentioned thereunder, but undue  delay  in
\nmaking\tthe award leads to manifest injustice.\t Having\t had
\nthe  power to make an award under the agreement and  without
\nany  limitation\t the  Collector\t would\tbe  left  with\t his
\ndiscretion to make the award leisurely at his whim or he may
\ndelay the issuance of the notification under Section 3(1) or
\nmay  issue   successive declarations under Section  6.\tThis
\narbitrary  exercise  of power would result in  hardship\t and
\nmanifest  injustice to the owner of the land which would  be
\nviolative  of not only Article 14 of the  Constitution,\t but
\nalso  becomes  an  unfair procedure  offending\tArticle\t 21.
\nTherefore,  the legislature introduced the  proviso.   “Such
\ndate” referred to in the proviso, by necessary\timplication,
\nmust  be referable to the date of the agreement,  though  by
\nstrict\t construction  it may lead to  the  conclusion\tthat
\n“such date” may be referred to
\n6 ILR (1981) 2 Ker 53
\n680<\/span>
\nthe  date  of  the publication\tof  the\t notification  under
\nSection\t 3(1).\t When  two  views  are\tpossible,  to  avoid
\nmanifest   injustice,\tunjustness  and\t  arbitrariness\t  or
\nunconstitutionality  of the statute, construction in  favour
\nof sustaining the constitutionality should be leaned.\n<\/p>\n
6.   In\t Tribhovandas  Haribhai Tamboli v.  Gujarat  Revenue
\nTribunal7<\/a>  this\t Court held that the proper  function  of  a
\nproviso\t is  to\t except and deal with  a  case\twhich  would
\notherwise  fall\t within\t the general language  of  the\tmain
\nenactment,  and its effect is to be confined to\t that  case.
\nWhere  the  language of the main enactment is  explicit\t and
\nunambiguous,  the  proviso can have no repercussion  on\t the
\ninterpretation of the main enactment, so as to exclude\tfrom
\nit,  by\t implication what clearly falls within\tits  express
\nterms.\tThe scope of the proviso, therefore, is to carve out
\nan exception to the main enactment and it excludes something
\nwhich otherwise would have been within the rule.  It has  to
\noperate\t in the same field and if the language of  the\tmain
\nenactment  is clear, the proviso cannot be torn\t apart\tfrom
\nthe  main  enactment  nor  can it  be  used  to\t nullify  by
\nimplication  what  the enactment clearly says,\tnor  set  at
\nnaught\tthe  real object of the main enactment,\t unless\t the
\nwords  of  the\tproviso are such that it  is  its  necessary
\neffect.\t  In  that  case it Was held  that  by\treading\t the
\nproviso consistent with the provisions of Section 88 of\t the
\nBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, the object of the\tmain
\nprovision  was\tsustained.   In\t A.N.  Sehgal  v.  Raje\t Ram
\nSheoran8<\/a>  another Bench interpreting proviso in the  Haryana
\nService\t of Engineers Rules, 1960 held that the\t proviso  to
\nRule  5(2)(a)  cannot be applied to confer  the\t benefit  of
\nregular appointment on every promotee appointed in excess of
\n50% quota.  This Court harmoniously read the main  provision
\nand the proviso and gave effect to the rule.\n<\/p>\n
7.   It\t would,\t thus, be clear that Section 16(1)  and\t its
\nproviso\t should be read in the context of Section 16(2)\t and
\nif  so\tharmoniously read to give effect to  the  scheme  of
\nSection 16, “such date” must be referable to the date of the
\nagreement and not to the date of the notification  published
\nunder  Section\t3(1) of the Act.  Thus\tconsidered,  we\t are
\nbroadly in agreement with the High Court on this aspect\t and
\nhold  that after the expiry of four years from the  date  of
\nthe  agreement,\t namely 13-5-1977, the Collector  ceased  to
\nhave power to pass the award under Section 16(1).  It is  to
\nbe seen that the agreement validly executed, does not become
\nvoid  after  expiry  of\t the  period  prescribed  under\t the
\nstatute.   It  remains\tvalid,\tbut  becomes  unenforceable.
\nSince the proviso prescribes a limitation on the exercise of
\nthe  power by the Collector under Section 16(1) to  make  an
\naward  in terms of the contract, on its expiry he ceases  to
\nhave  power to make award in terms of the agreement.   Since
\nthe  High  Court had not quashed the award with\t a  view  to
\navoid  further delay, and directed the Collector to  make  a
\nreference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil court, we
\nare informed that such a reference was, in fact, made by the
\nCollector  and\tis pending.  By interim\t orders\t this  Court
\nstayed further proceedings of the reference.  Accordingly we
\ndismiss the appeals and
\n7 (1991) 3 SCC 442
\n8  1992 Supp (1) SCC 304: 1993 SCC (L&S) 675 :(1993) 24\t ATC
\n559<\/span>
\n681<\/span>
\ndirect the civil court to expeditiously determine the market
\nvalue according to law.\t However, it is made clear that\t the
\nobservation of the High Court in the judgment under  appeals
\n“that the civil court shall not be bound by the terms of the
\nagreement  Ex.\t P-1  in  the  matter  of  determining\t the
\ncompensation” cannot come in the way of the Land Acquisition
\nCollector relying upon the agreement as a piece of  evidence
\nas to what the parties had thought to be the market value of
\nthe  acquired  property\t with  reference  to  the  date\t  of
\npublication  of\t preliminary  notification  and\t the   court
\ndeciding   on  its  evidentiary\t value\tin  the\t matter\t  of
\ndetermination of the market value of the acquired property.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  appeals  are dismissed, but in  the  circumstances
\nparties would bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
682<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (5) 672, JT 1994 (5) 113 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: KERALA STATE HOUSING BD. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMAPRIYA HOTELS DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/07\/1994 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-24T19:23:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-24T19:23:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3681,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994\",\"name\":\"Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-24T19:23:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-24T19:23:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994","datePublished":"1994-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-24T19:23:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994"},"wordCount":3681,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994","name":"Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-24T19:23:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-housing-bd-vs-ramapriya-hotels-on-28-july-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18853","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}