{"id":22287,"date":"2006-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006"},"modified":"2015-10-31T18:41:16","modified_gmt":"2015-10-31T13:11:16","slug":"patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 … vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & … on 13 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 … vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & … on 13 December, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: B Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5785 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nPatel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors.\t\t\t\t.Appellants\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSpl. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.\t\t.Respondents\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. Singh & Altamas Kabir\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
(Arising out of SLP) No.11062-135 OF 2002)
\nWITH
\nC.A Nos.              5786             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11136-11192 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5787             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11194-11205 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5788             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11206-11225 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5789 \t         \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11227-11237 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5790             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11238-11247 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5791             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11248-11260 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5792             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11262-11270 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5793             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11273- 11279 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5794             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11280-11289 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5795             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11291-11299 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5796             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11310-11314 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5797             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11401-11440 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5798             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11369-11387 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5799             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11315-11336 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5800             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11389-11400 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5801             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11358-11368 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5802             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11301-11309 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5803             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11441-11451 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5804             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11338-11355 of 2002,
\nC.A Nos.              5805             \/06 @ SLP(C) Nos.11356-11357 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
B.P. SINGH, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tPermission to file SLP granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tSpecial Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this batch of appeals the sole question which falls for
\nconsideration is whether the appellants herein are entitled to maintain
\nan application for special leave before this Court impugning the
\njudgment and order of the High Court which affirmed the findings of
\nthe Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in
\nappeals preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the
\nrespondent herein.  The appellants contend that the High Court ought
\nto have, even in the appeals preferred by the Special Land Acquisition
\nOfficer, awarded interest on solatium payable under Section 23 (2) of
\nthe Land Acquisition Act.  The respondent on the other hand,
\ncontends that the appeals had been preferred before the High Court by
\nthe Special Land Acquisition Officer in which the appellants herein
\nwere the respondents.  The appeals preferred by the Special Land
\nAcquisition Officer having been dismissed by the High Court, the
\nappellants cannot be said to be parties aggrieved by the judgment and
\norder of the High Court.  Before the High Court they had not even
\nprayed for grant of interest on solatium and, therefore, they cannot be
\npermitted to move this Court by way of special leave claiming such
\nrelief. It is not disputed by them that if really such a claim was made
\neither before the Collector or before the Reference Court dealing with
\nthe matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, having
\nregard to the law as now settled by a decision of this Court, interest on
\nsolatium was bound to be granted to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
The few facts which are relevant for the disposal of these
\nappeals are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
Five Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
\n1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act) was published for
\nacquisition of lands situated in Village Vekara District Mehsana,
\nGujarat.  The appellants are the land-owners of the lands sought to be
\nacquired by the aforesaid Notifications.  The Special Land Acquisition
\nOfficer offered compensation @ Rs.24,000\/- per hec. (Rs.2.40 per sq.
\nmtr.) for irrigated lands and Rs.16,000 per. hec. (Rs.1.60 per sq. mtr.)
\nfor non-irrigated lands.  The appellants claimed a reference under
\nSection 18 of the Act and demanded compensation @ Rs.30 per sq.
\nmtr..  By its judgment and order of April 20, 2000 the Reference
\nCourt under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the
\nmarket value of the lands of the appellants @ Rs.22 per sq. mtr..
\nHowever, it did not award interest on the amounts payable under
\nSection 23 (1A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
\nnamely, on the amount payable by way of additional amount and
\nsolatium.  The Reference Court following the judgment of this Court
\nin Prem Nath Kapoor & Anr. Vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of
\nIndia Ltd. & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 71 held that no interest was payable
\nin respect of amounts envisaged by Section 23 (1A) and 23 (2) of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Reference Court
\nenhancing the compensation payable to the appellants, the Special
\nLand Acquisition Officer preferred First Appeal Nos.1320 to 1395 of
\n2001 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which came to
\nbe disposed of by the judgment and order of the High Court dated
\nSeptember 19, 2001.  The High Court found no reason to interfere
\nwith the determination of compensation by the Reference Court and
\naccordingly dismissed the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
The instant special leave petitions have been filed by the
\nclaimants contending that the High Court ought to have awarded
\ninterest on the amounts payable under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the
\nAct.  It is their case that the interest payable on these amounts must be
\nincorporated in the decree of the Court even if no prayer is made for it
\nbecause the Act obliges the Collector to pay such interest on the
\namount determined by the Collector or the Court.  For awarding such
\ninterest no exercise of judicial discretion is called for.  Only an
\narithmetical exercise has to be undertaken to calculate the interest
\npayable.  They, therefore, submit that the High Court ought to have
\npassed an order awarding interest to the appellants on the amounts
\npayable under Section 23 (1A) and 23 (2) of the Act even if no formal
\nclaim was made before it by the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
To appreciate the submission of the appellants it is necessary to
\nnotice a few other facts.\n<\/p>\n
The question as to whether interest is payable on the additional
\namount payable under Section 23 (1A) and on solatium under Section
\n23 (2) of the Act came up for consideration before this Court in Union
\nof India Vs. Shri Ram Mehar and Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 109.  This Court
\nheld that “market value” is only one of the components to be reckoned
\nwith in the determination of the amount of compensation.  Solatium
\ndid not form part of the “market value” of the land.  Thus the word
\n“compensation” in Section 23 (1) of the Act consists of the “market
\nvalue” of the land and the solatium which is the consideration for the
\ncompulsory nature of the acquisition.  Following the principle laid
\ndown in Ram Mehar, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Periyar and
\nPareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195
\naffirmed the view that the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium
\nunder the Act.\n<\/p>\n
However, in Mir Fazeelath Hussain and Ors. Vs. Special
\nDeputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad (1995) 3 SCC 208, a
\nthree Judge Bench of this Court held that solatium is not a part of the
\naward and hence interest is not claimable thereon.  The same view
\nwas reiterated in Prem Nath Kapoor (supra) and later in Yadavrao P.
\nPathade (D) by Lrs.& Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra  (1996) 2 SCC
\n570 the same was reiterated by a three Judge Bench of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
On account of the conflict of decisions of this Court of co-equal
\nbenches the matter was ultimately referred to a larger bench of five
\nJudges and the matter has since been settled by a decision of this
\nCourt rendered by a Bench consisting of five Judges in Sunder Vs.
\nUnion of India (2001) 7 SCC 211.  The judgment of the Supreme
\nCourt was delivered on September 19, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
It is a co-incidence that the impugned common judgment of the
\nHigh Court in the instant case was also pronounced on September 19,
\n2001, the same day on which judgment of the larger Bench of the
\nSupreme Court in Sunder’s case was pronounced holding that interest
\nwas payable on the amount envisaged by Section 23 (1A) as well as
\n23 (2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel for the respondents contend that there is no reason why
\nthe appellants should be permitted to make a claim before this Court
\nwhich they had not made before the High Court.  Their claim for grant
\nof interest on these amounts was negatived by the Reference Court
\nrelying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Prem Nath
\nKapoor’s case.  The appellants did not appeal against that part of the
\norder of the Reference Court and, therefore, they have given up their
\nright to claim interest on the additional amount and the solatium
\npayable under Section 23 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 The appellants on the other hand, contend that at the time when
\nthe reference under Section 18 was decided by the Court, the
\njudgment in Prem Nath Kapoor held the field and, therefore, in the
\nteeth of that judgment of the Supreme Court it was not considered
\nadvisable to appeal against that part of the order.  Even so, they could
\nhave made such a claim before the High Court when the appeal
\npreferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was being heard by
\nit.  Unfortunately, even till then the judgment of the Supreme Court in
\nSunder’s case had not been pronounced.  It is only accidental that the
\nimpugned common judgment and order of the High Court and the
\njudgment in Sunder’s case were pronounced on the same day and,
\ntherefore, it was only after the disposal of the appeals by the High
\nCourt that the appellants could, on the strength of the decision in
\nSunder’s case, claim interest on these amounts.  It is for this reason
\nthat they have invoked the special jurisdiction of this Court under
\nArticle 136 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants heavily relied on the observations made in Shree
\nVijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat (1991) 1 SCC 262.
\nThat was a case where Government took possession of certain lands
\nunder an arrangement with the owners on November 19, 1949.  It
\nraised structure on the aforesaid land but did not give land in
\nexchange to the owners thereof.  On February 1, 1955 a Notification
\nunder Section 6 (1) of the Act was issued declaring that the land was
\nneeded for public purpose.  The Collector awarded Rs.5075.44 as
\ncompensation.  The land-owner asked for a reference under Section
\n18 of the Act.  The Court decided the reference under Section 18 and
\nfound that the claimant was entitled to compensation on the basis of
\nmarket value of the land on the date of Notification under Section 6 of
\nthe Act.   It accordingly awarded compensation  @ Rs.3 per sq. yard
\nas also solatium @ 15 per cent and interest @ 6 per cent from
\nFebruary 1, 1955.  The award of the Court was challenged by the
\nState which preferred an appeal before the High Court.  The High
\nCourt held that the relevant date for determining the compensation
\nbased on determining the market value of the land was the date of the
\nNotification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and since no such
\nNotification was issued it was not possible to determine the amount of
\ncompensation payable under the Act.  The claimants came to this
\nCourt after obtaining certificate from the High Court and finally this
\nCourt allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court
\nholding that the Notification under Section 6 of the Act be treated as a
\ncomposite Notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 (1) of the Act
\nand, therefore, the Court could lawfully award the market value of the
\nland on that day.  The High Court thereafter accepted the appeal
\npreferred by the State and reduced the price of acquired land from
\nRs.3 per sq. yard to Rs.1.35 per sq. yard,  however rejecting the claim
\nof the claimant to interest from November 19, 1949 instead of
\nFebruary 1, 1955.  The claimants therefore, preferred an appeal in
\nwhich the aforesaid judgment was rendered.\n<\/p>\n
This Court noticed that the State had filed an appeal before the
\nHigh Court against the award of compensation @ Rs.3 per sq. yard
\nbut the appellant\/claimant did not file any appeal against that part of
\nthe award which went against it and restricted the amount of interest
\nfrom February 1, 1955 instead of November 19, 1949.  The appellant
\nfiled cross objections but they were dismissed as barred by time.  The
\nHigh Court on interpretation of Section 23(1), 26, 27 and 28
\nconcluded that the interest payable to the claimants has to be a part of
\nthe award  decree alongwith the compensation amount and as such is
\nsubject to rules of procedure and limitation.  Thus, the cross
\nobjections of the claimants having been rejected as time barred, it
\ncould not claim interest in appeal preferred by State.  The High Court
\nalso found that the relief was barred by reason of the principle of res-
\njudicata.\n<\/p>\n
After noticing the findings of the High Court this Court held
\nthat on a reference under Section 18 of the Act the parties go to trial
\nprimarily for the determination of market value of the land.  So far as
\naward of interest is concerned, it is never an issue between the parties.
\nOnce, the conditions under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act are
\nsatisfied the award of interest is consequential and automatic.  This
\nCourt went on to observe:-\n<\/p>\n
“The High Court while appreciating the point in issue
\ndid not consider the mandatory provisions of Section
\n34 of the Act.  The said section specifically provides
\nthat when the amount of compensation is not paid on
\nor before taking possession of the land the Collector
\nshall pay interest at 6 per cent per annum from the
\ndate of taking over possession.  The payment of
\ninterest is not dependent on any claim by the person
\nwhose land has been acquired.  There can be no
\ncontroversy or any lis between the parties regarding
\npayment of interest.   When once the provision of
\nSection 34 are attracted it is obligatory for the
\nCollector to pay the interest. If he fails to do so the
\nsame can be claimed from the court in proceedings
\nunder Section 18 of the Act or even from the appellate
\ncourt\/courts thereafter”.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court also observed:-\n<\/p>\n
“There is inherent evidence in the wording of Sections
\n28 and 34 to show that the framers of the Act intended to
\nassure the payment of interest to the person whose land
\nwas acquired and it was not the intention to subject the
\nsaid payment to procedural hazards.  Section 34 lays
\ndown that “the Collector shall pay the amount awarded
\nwith interest at 6 per cent per annum..”  The legislative
\nmandate is clear.  It is a directive to the collector to pay
\nthe interest in a given circumstance.  Section 34 nowhere
\nsays that the interest amount is to be included in the
\naward-decree as prepared under Section 23(1) read with
\nSection 26 of the Act.  Similarly Section 28 provides “the
\naward of the court may direct that the Collector shall pay
\ninterest”.  Here also the award under Section 23(1) read
\nwith Section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment
\nof interest under the section.  The interest to be paid
\nunder Section 34 and also under Section 28 is of different
\ncharacter than the compensation amount under Section
\n23(1) of the Act.  Whereas the interest, if payable under
\nthe Act, can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings
\nunder the Act, the amount of compensation under Section
\n23(1) which is an award-decree under Section 26, is
\nsubject to the rules of Procedure and Limitation.  The
\nrules of procedure are hand-maiden of justice.  The
\nprocedural hassle cannot come in the way of substantive
\nrights of citizens under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe do not, therefore, agree with the reasoning and
\nthe findings reached by the High Court.  We are of the
\nopinion that it was not necessary for the appellant-
\nclaimant to have filed separate appeal\/cross-objections
\nbefore the High Court for the purposes of claiming
\ninterest under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act.  He
\ncould claim the interest in the State appeal. The fact, that
\nhe filed cross-objections which were dismissed as time
\nbarred, is wholly irrelevant”.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
\nsubmitted that in terms of the judgment in Shree Vijay Cotton even if
\nthe claimants had right to claim interest at any stage, they ought to
\nhave made such a claim before the High Court at any time before the
\ndisposal of the appeals.  Though, it was not necessary to make such a
\nclaim in any particular form, and neither the rules of procedure nor the
\nrigors of limitation inhibited the right of the claimants to claim
\ninterest, the least that was expected of them was to make a claim in
\nsome form or the other, which they have failed to do.  In such a case,
\nit would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its discretion
\nunder Article 136 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving regard to the submissions urged on behalf of the
\nrespondents we could have remitted the matter to the High Court to
\ngive an opportunity to the claimants to make a claim of interest before
\nthe High Court.  That however, would only be a formality because
\nhaving regard to the law laid down in Sunder, the High Court is bound
\nto award the interest on the additional amount payable under Section
\n23(1A) and solatium payable under Section 23 (2) of the Act.
\nMoreover, grant of interest on these amounts is consequential and
\nautomatic and involves only arithmetical calculation and not
\napplication of judicial mind or exercise of judicial discretion.  It is no
\ndoubt true that the appellants ought to have made such a claim before
\nthe High Court, even in the appeals preferred by the State.  But in
\nfairness to the appellants it must be conceded that during the
\npendency of the appeals before the High Court the law as laid down in
\nPrem Nath Kapoor held the field and, therefore, it would have been
\nfutile for them to claim interest.  The claimants could have filed such
\nan application before the High Court if the judgment in Sunder was
\npronounced when the appeals were pending before the High Court.
\nUnfortunately, they could not do so because the judgment in Sunder
\nand the impugned judgment in the appeals preferred by the State
\nbefore the High Court were pronounced on the same day.  Having
\nregard to these facts, peculiar to this case, we are persuaded to allow
\nthe appeals preferred by the appellants as a special case in the interest
\nof justice.  Accordingly, we hold that the appellants are entitled to
\ninterest on the amounts payable to them under Section 23 (1A) and
\nSection 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act.  We direct the Collector to
\ncalculate the interest payable and pay the same to the appellants
\nwithout further delay.  These appeals are accordingly allowed.  No
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 … vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & … on 13 December, 2006 Author: B Singh Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5785 of 2006 PETITIONER: Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. .Appellants RESPONDENT: Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. .Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-22287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPatel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 ... vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & ... on 13 December, 2006 - 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\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 ... vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & ... on 13 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-31T13:11:16+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 … vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & … on 13 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-31T13:11:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3049,\"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\\\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006\",\"name\":\"Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 ... vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & ... on 13 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-31T13:11:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 … vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & … on 13 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 ... vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & ... on 13 December, 2006 - 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\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 ... vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & ... on 13 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-31T13:11:16+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 … vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & … on 13 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-31T13:11:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006"},"wordCount":3049,"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\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006","name":"Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 ... vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & ... on 13 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-31T13:11:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-joitaram-kalidas-ors-a-vs-spl-land-acquisition-officer-on-13-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. \u00c3 … vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & … on 13 December, 2006"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/22287","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=22287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}