Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2008 (9) TMI 977 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2008 (9) TMI 977 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - TMI - First Appeal No. 1156 of 1990 - Dated:- 26-9-2008 - Dilip Gupta, J. First Appeal No.392 of 1983, First Appeal No.391 of 1983, First Appeal No364 of 1998, First Appeal No.1163 of 1988, First Appeal No.771 of 1989, First Appeal No.212 of 1996, First Appeal No.313 of 1993, First Appeal No.197 of 1996, First Appeal No.207 of 1996, First Appeal No. 126 of 1991, First Appeal No. 219 of 1988, First Appeal No.35 of 1983, First Appeal No.73 of 1983, First A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t large area of land situated in three adjoining villages Mundera, Neem Sarai and Chak Maida Patti in Tehsil Chail, District Allahabad were acquired for construction of a Mandi Samiti. Out of these 22 First Appeals, three First Appeals have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the market rate determined by the Reference Court while the remaining 19 First Appeals have been filed by the Mandi Samiti for reduction of the market rate. The particulars of all the First Appeals are contained .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Land Acquisition Officer determined the market rate of the land for villages Mundera and Chak Maida Patti at a uniform rate @ ₹ 2400/- per bigha while for the land acquired in village Neem Sarai, the Special Land Acquisition Officer adopted the belting system. The market rate of the land falling in the first, second and third belt was determined at ₹ 20,338.98 per bigha, ₹ 13,559.32 per bigha and ₹ 10,169.49 per bigha respectively. The Reference Court, however, has dete .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Ref. Court Rate of land awarded by Ref. Court Rate of Solatium awarded by Ref. Court Rate of Interest awarded by Ref. Court (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 1. FA 1156/90 Ram Adhar Vs. State & others 21/81 Mundera 11.6.1980 15.9.1984 Rs.4,000 Per Bigha Not mentioned Not mentioned 2. FA 392/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Punnu Lal & ors. (sons of Baij Nath) 20/81 Mundera 10.6.1980 31.5.1983 ₹ 40/- Per Sq. Metre 15% 6% 3. FA 391/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Ram Narain 22/81 Mundera 11.6.1980 31.5.198 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

FA 313/93 K.U.M.S. Vs. Manna Lal 43/82 Neem Sarai 10.7.1981 10.5.1988 Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha 30% 9/15% 9. FA 197/96 K.U.M.S. Vs. Vs. G.D. Mukherjee 42/82 Neem Sarai 10.7.1981 21.10.89 ₹ 20,000/- Per Bigha 30% 9/15% 10. FA 207/96 K.U.M.S. Vs. Mohd. Akram 33/82 Neem Sarai 10.7.1981 30.1.1989 Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha 30% 9/15%+23 (1-A) 11. FA 126/91 K.U.M.S. Vs. Kafeel Ahmad 32/82 Neem Sarai 10.7.1981 4.11.1987 Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha 30% 9/15% 12. FA 219/88 Kafeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. 32/82 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a 15% 6% 17. FA 389/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Sharifunnisa 14/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 8.4.1983 ₹ 20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 18. FA 390/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Amina Bibi 13/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 8.4.1983 ₹ 20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 19. FA 393/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Munni Lal 16/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 20.5.1983 ₹ 15,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 20. FA 178/84 K.U.M.S. Vs. Sri Ram & Ors. 15/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 20.5.1983 ₹ 20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 21. FA 179/84 K.U.M.S. V .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te to village Chak Maida Patti. It would, therefore, be appropriate to separately deal with the Awards relating to these villages. MUNDERA First Appeal Nos. 1156 of 1990, 392 of 1983 and 391 of 1983 relate to village Mundera. While First Appeal No.1156 of 1990 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the market rate determined by the Reference Court @ ₹ 4000/- per bigha, the remaining two First Appeals have been filed by the Mandi Samiti for reduction of the market rate determined .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ial Land Acquisition Officer made a deduction of 25% and determined the market rate @ ₹ 2400/- per bigha. In First Appeal No.1156 of 1990, which arises out of LA Case No.21 of 1981, the Reference Court considered the two awards given earlier by the Reference Court in respect of the same acquisition. These awards were rendered in LA Case No.8 of 1982 (Moti Lal Vs. State of U.P.) and LA Case No.170 of 1981 (Lala Lal Vs. State of U.P.). The claimants had placed reliance upon the award given i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

accordingly awarded market rate @ ₹ 4000/- per bigha. However, even after having so determined the market rate of the land, it rejected the Reference by the award dated 19th April, 1983 under the mistaken impression that the Land Acquisition Officer had also awarded ₹ 4000/- per bigha whereas in fact the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded ₹ 2400 per bigha. Accordingly, an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the claimant which was registere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

83 @ ₹ 40/- per sq. meter solely on the basis of the circle rate determined by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act read with Rules 340 and 341 of the Stamp Act Rules. It needs to be mentioned that the circle rate had been fixed by the Collector for the land situated in the said village between ₹ 40/- per sq. meter to ₹ 50/- per sq. meter in the year 1977. The Reference Court discarded the award given in LA Reference No.18 of 1981 (Munni Lal Vs. State of U.P.) in r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

NEEM SARAI First Appeal Nos. 364 of 1998, 1163 of 1988, 771 of 1989, 212 of 1996, 313 of 1993, 197 of 1996, 207 of 1996, 126 of 1991 and 219 of 1988 relate to land situated in village Neem Sarai. All the aforesaid First Appeals except First Appeal No.219 of 1988, have been filed by the Mandi Samiti for reduction of the market rate of the land determined by the Reference Court. The Reference Court determined the market rate of the land @ ₹ 20,338.98 per bigha in all these First Appeals exc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eds mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 41 related to land situated in Plot Nos.170 and 171 which were not only very near to the land under acquisition but were also of the same period and since in 19 of these sale deeds, the rate of the land was ₹ 27,118.84 per bigha, the Special Land Acquisition Officer thought it appropriate to take into consideration this rate for determining the market rate of the land under acquisition and after making a deduction of 25%, the Special Land Acquisition Offic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no necessity of adopting the belting system after having made a deduction of 25% on account of the largeness of the land acquired viz-a-viz the land covered by the examplar sale deeds. This market rate of land has been determined by the Reference Court in the awards giving rise to all the First Appeals except the award giving rise to First Appeal No.212 of 1996. In First Appeal No.212 of 1996, which arises out of LA Case No.169 of 1982, the Reference Court determined the market rate of the land .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ould be the appropriate market rate of the land at the time of acquisition and accordingly determined the market rate of the land @ ₹ 10/- per sq. yard. CHAK MAIDA PATTI First Appeal Nos. 35 of 1983, 73 of 1983, 74 of 1983, 383 of 1983, 389 of 1983, 390 of 1983, 393 of 1983, 178 of 1984, 179 of 1984 and (138) of 1991 relate to the land acquired in village Chak Maida Patti. Except First Appeal No.35 of 1983 which has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the market rate determined b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3, 383 of 1983, 389 of 1983, 390 of 1983, 178 of 1984 and 179 of 1984, the Reference Court determined the market rate of the land @ ₹ 20,000/- per bigha. In determining the aforesaid rate of ₹ 20,000/- per bigha the Reference Court relied upon the exemplar sale deed executed on 17th February, 1976 in which the market rate of the land was ₹ 2040/- per biswa or ₹ 40,800/- per bigha and after making deduction for the largeness of the area of the land under acquisition viz-a- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

account of the fact that the land covered by the award in the case of Moti Lal was better situated. In First Appeal No.(138) of 1991, the Reference Court determined the market rate of the land @ ₹ 10,000/- per bigha by award made on 1st October, 1983 on the basis of the same award of the Reference Court in LA Case No.8 of 1982 but because of the location of the plots under consideration determined the market rate of land at ₹ 10,000/- per bigha. I have heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Reference Court under the awards cannot be sustained as the acquiring body namely Mandi Samiti had not been impleaded as a party before the Reference Court and consequently had no opportunity of leading evidence but at the same time he submitted that since the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was binding upon the Mandi Samiti and the acquisition was very old relating to the year 1977, the Mandi Samiti would be satisfied if this Court uniformally fixes the market rate for the l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No.1156 of 1990 the market rate of the land situated in village Mundera may be enhanced from ₹ 4000/- per bigha . Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Reference Court committed no error in determining the market rate of the land @ ₹ 40/- per sq. meter on the basis of the circle rate determined by the Collector under the Stamp Act and in any case the claimants were entitled to the statutory benefits under Amendment Act No.68 of 1984. In some of the First Appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ARKET RATE As would be noticed, the Reference Court determined the market rate of the land at different rates. Sri B.D. Mandhyan learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Mandi Samiti has submitted that in seven cases the Reference Court determined the market rate of the land situated in village Neem Sarai @ ₹ 20,338.98/- per bigha and in eight cases relating to village Chak Maida Patti the Reference Court determined the market rate @ ₹ 20,000/- per bigha. He made a statement during t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rket rate for the land situated in the first belt but had erroneously adopted the belting system thereafter. He has, therefore, very fairly stated that the Mandi Samiti would have no objection if this rate is determined in the First Appeals filed by the claimants as well as in First Appeal No. 392 of 1983, First Appeal No. 391 of 1983 and First Appeal No. 212 of 1996 filed by the Mandi Samiti since if the matter is remanded to the Reference Court it would take a lot of time even though 30 years .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l for the claimants have placed reliance upon the award given in L.A. Case No. 20 of 1981 and L.A. Case No. 22 of 1981 relating to village Mundera wherein the Reference Court determined the market rate of the land @ ₹ 40/- per square metre and have, accordingly, submitted that they are entitled to the same market rate. In view of the very fair statement made by Sri B.D. Mandhyan learned Senior Counsel for the Mandi Samiti, the dispute narrows down to a few Appeals only as the First Appeals .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t Appeal No. 212 of 1996 as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of the market rate to ₹ 40/- per square metre. This determination has been made by the Reference Court in L.A. Case No. 20 of 1981, L.A. Case No. 22 of 1981 and L.A. Case No. 169 of 1982 giving rise to First Appeal No. 392 of 1983, First Appeal No. 391 of 1983 and First Appeal No. 212 of 1996 respectively. The awards in L.A. Case No. 20 of 1981 (Baij Nath Vs. State of U.P.) and L.A. Case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ldar, Chail. Photostat copy (paper no. C-45 and C-46) are on the file and the original is in the file of L.A. Reference no. 22 of 1981, and the same has been read in this case with the consent of the parties. A perusal of this document will go to show that the circle rate of the land of village Mundera in the year 1977 was between ₹ 40/- per. sq. meter and ₹ 50/- per sq. meter. The type of the land is mentioned as 'MANJHA-I'. It may be mentioned here that the land in dispute .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ccepted. U.P. Government has framed Stamps Rules in the year 1942, under Indian Stamp Act, Chapter XV of the Rules deals with rules for determining the market value of certain instruments. Rule 340 provides that certain particulars are to be furnished in an instrument of conveyance etc, relating to immovable property. Section 341, provides that for the purposes of payment of Stamp Duty the minimum of market value of immovable property forming subject of an instrument of conveyance etc, referred .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hese rules, by the State Government, are not market value of the land which will be the subject matter of sale etc. The Court can also fix the market value of the property acquired on the basis of circle rates fixed by the Government for the land of that village in the year in which the land was acquired. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the State cannot be accepted for the above reason." In the subsequent award made by the Reference Court on 18th March, 1988 in L.A. Case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

983 and First Appeal No. 392 of 1983 has defended the determination of the market rate given by the Reference Court on the basis of the circle rate and has also contended that the Reference Court has not determined the market rate solely on the basis of the circle rate but has taken into consideration the entire evidence on the record. Sri O.P. Srivastava learned counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No. 1156 of 1990 has also contended that the market rate of the land which has been determin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It would be seen that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides for payment of stamp duty on "market value" on certain instruments. So far the State of U.P. is concerned, Section 47-A was inserted in the Stamp Act by the UP Legislature in the year 1969. It permits the Stamp Authorities to investigate the market value stated in such instruments to check evasion of stamp duty. Section 47-A also empowers the framing of rules for fixation of minimum ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly held by the Supreme Court that the rate determined by the Collector under the Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder for the purposes of collecting stamp duty cannot form the foundation for determining the market rate of the land under Section 23(1) of the Act. In Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 595, the Supreme Court held that the basic value register is maintained only for the purpose of collecting stamp duty and cannot form the fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se thereof all the State Legislature including the Legislature of A.P. amended the Act and enacted Section 47-A empowering the registering officer to levy stamp duty on instruments of conveyance, etc, if the registering officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property, covered by the conveyance, exchange, gift, release of right or settlement, has not been truly set forth in the instruments, he may refuse registering such instrument and refer the same to the Collector for deter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rument brought for registration. When he has reasons to believe it to be undervalued, he should get verified whether the market value was truly reflected in the instrument for the purpose of stamp duty; the Collector on reference could determine the same on the basis of the prevailing market value. Section 47-A conferred no express power to the Government to determine the market value of the lands prevailing in a particular area, village, block, district or the region and to maintain Basic Valua .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the Act, of the lands acquired in that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc. Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine market value. ...................... Accordingly we hold that the basic value of registration has no statutory lands under Section 23 of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n P. Ram Reddy & Ors., Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 305, and K.S. Shivadiramma & Ors., Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 62. The relevance of the circle rates under the Stamp Act was also considered by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand Bansal Vs. Collector Ghaziabad, AIR 1999 SC 2126, and it was observed: "......Reading Section 47-A with the aforesaid Rule 340-A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct the registering authority to refer to the Collector for determination in case the property is undervalued in such instrument. The circle rate does not take away the right of such person to show that the property in question is correctly valued as he gets an opportunity in case of undervaluation to prove it before the Collector after reference is made. This also marks the dividing line for the exercise of power between the registering authority and the Collector. In case the valuation in the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3: AIR 2004 SC 1850, the Supreme Court also took the view that the basic valuation register maintained for stamp duty purposes cannot be relied on while determining the market value. The Supreme Court, in Ranvir Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3467 held that the notification issued by the Union of India, fixing circle rates, is inadmissible in evidence. In the aforesaid two L.A. Case No. 20 of 1981 and L.A. Case No. 22 of 1981, as seen above, the Reference Court has placed reliance upon th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctor under the Stamp Act but also on the basis of other evidence on record. This submission cannot be accepted as a perusal of the awards leaves no manner of doubt that the market rate of the land was determined by the Reference Court only on the basis of the circle rate determined by the Collector. The sale deeds which were filed by the claimants before the Reference Court were not taken into consideration by the Reference Court for the determination of this market rate. Even the award of the R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

market rate of the land has now to be determined. Section 23(1) of the Act provides that the market value of the land has to be determined with reference to the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In Raghuvans Narain Singh v. the U.P. Government AIR 1967 SC 465, the Supreme Court explained what 'market value' meant by stating it to be "the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller having due regard to its existing condition, with al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng the 'market value' of the acquired land: "While determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. The price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser must be taken into consideration while at the same time disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that sale or award relating to a land which closely or nearly compares with the land under acquisition and to take the price of land of such sale or award as the basis for determining the market value. However it has to be seen whether the sale instance of one revenue village would have relevance for the land of other revenue village if the two lands are similarly situated and possess similar location and building potentiality. In Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 564 uniform .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

velopment and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of ₹ 40,000 per acre......." Thus, artificial barriers like village boundaries cannot be given undue importance because the land in any particular area or in close proximity normally possess similar potentially and market value. The market value of the land in such cases should, therefor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he quality of the land in these three villages so as to call for a different determination of the market rate. In fact, it would be seen that in L.A. Case No. 20 of 1981, L.A. Case No.21 of 1981 and L.A. Case No. 22 of 1981 which relate to land of village Mundera the claimants themselves had relied upon the award given in L.A. Case No. 8 of 1982 in respect of land situated in village Chak Maida Patti, wherein the market rate was determined @ ₹ 20,000/- per bigha. Thus, in all these three F .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r Counsel appearing for the Mandi Samiti states that the Court may award ₹ 5,000/- for the Well as has been done in some other cases. This is acceptable to the counsel for the claimant. Thus, in addition to the market value of the land, the claimant shall also be entitled to ₹ 5,000/- for the acquisition of Well. For the same reason the market rate of the land in First Appeal No. 212 of 1996 arising out of L.A. Case No. 169 of 1982 determined by the Reference Court @ ₹ 10/- per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e fact that a uniform rate should be awarded for the land situated in all the three villages, the market rate of the land should be enhanced to ₹ 20,338.98/- per bigha in this First Appeal. The only remaining First Appeal filed by the claimant is First Appeal No. 219 of 1988. Strong emphasis was placed by Sri M. Islam learned counsel for the claimant that the market rate should be determined @ ₹ 40/- per square metre as was determined in L.A. Case No. 20 of 1981 and L.A. Case No. 22 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the orchard. Sri B.D. Mandhyan learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Mandi Samiti states that the Court may award ₹ 10,000/- for the tube-well and ₹ 5,000/- for the orchard. This is acceptable to the counsel for the claimant. Thus, in First Appeal No. 219 of 1988, in addition to the market value of the land, the claimant shall also be entitled to an amount of ₹ 10,000/- for the tube-well and ₹ 5,000/- for the orchard. In the remaining First Appeals filed by the Mandi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as inserted and the rate of solatium under Section 23(2) and the rate of interest under Section 28 were enhanced. The amended Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 are as follows:- 23(1-A). In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market-value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. 28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation:- If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did not award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possessi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such expiry. Section 30 of Amendment Act No.68 of 1984 contains the Transitional provisions and is as follows:- 30. Transitional Provisions (1) The provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,- (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the La .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation, to any award made by the Collector or court or to any order passed by the High court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People] and before the commencement of this Act." The aforesaid provisions have come up for interpretation bef .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llector or by the Court is made between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are rendered before 24 September, 1984 or after that date. All that is material is that the award by the Collector or by the Court should have been made between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984. ............ ......... We think that what Parliament intends to say is that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctor or of the Court made between the aforesaid two dates, the benefit of S. 30(2) will be applied to such award made between the aforesaid two dates. If the proceeding has passed to the stage of appeal before the High Court or the Supreme Court, it is at that stage when the benefit of S. 30(2) will be applied. But in every case, the award of the Collector or of the Court must have been made between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984."(emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court in Assistant Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lature envisaged that the owner of the land is entitled to 12% per annum additional amount on the market-value for a period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act in respect of such land up to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In respect of the amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, the Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ''the amending Act') is to be ordered in every case where the reference was pending before the reference Court on the date of commencement of the amending Act even though the award of the Collector was made prior to 30-4-1982." ....................................... For the reasons aforementioned it must be concluded that in respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to date of commencement of the amend .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m under Section 23(2) and the interest under Section 28 of the Act, the Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan (II) Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 367 observed:- "This Court thereby clearly held that even in the pending reference made before 30-4-1982, if the civil court makes an award between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, Section 30(2) gets attracted and thereby the enhanced solatium was available to the claimants. Since Section 30(2) deals with both the amendments to Section 23(2) and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on Bench holding that the award of the Collector or the court made between 13-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 would alone get attracted to Section 30(2) of the transitory provision. The restricted interpretation should not be understood to mean that Section 23(2) would not apply to the award of the civil court pending at the time when the Act came into force or thereafter. In this case, admittedly the award of the civil court was made after the Act had come into force, namely, 28-2-1985. .................. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he award of the Collector and the Reference Court is before 30-4-1982, the claimant would not be entitled to the benefit of the Amending Act 68 of 1984. (ii) If the award of the Collector is after 30-4-1982, the claimant would be entitled to all the benefits under the Amending Act 68 of 1984. (iii) If the award of the Collector is before 30-4-1982 but the award of the Reference Court is after 30-4-1982, the claimant would be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

agraph 34 of Raghubir Singh's case (supra). In this case the award of the Collector was made on 6.4.1972 and the Reference Court gave the award on 30.9.1985. The High Court, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S. Paripurnan (I), denied the benefit under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 28. It was urged before the Supreme Court by the claimant that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh (supra) and K.S. Paripurnan (II), the benefit under Section 23(1-A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ra 4 it was observed that restrictive interpretation should not be given. With great respect we are unable to subscribe to the view. As a matter of fact a three Judge Bench was trying to give an interpretation different from what was specifically given by the Constitution Bench." The larger Bench has not decided the matter and so the earlier decisions will govern these Appeals. In First Appeal No. 207 of 1996, the Reference Court has given the statutory benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

982. The claimants, however, in these cases have not filed any Appeal or cross-objection. It has, therefore, to be examined whether the claimants can be granted the aforesaid benefits in the First Appeals filed by the Mandi Samiti for reduction of the market rate. The question as to whether the statutory benefits under the Amending Act 68 of 1984 can be granted to the claimants in the Appeals filed by the acquiring body even if the claimants have not filed First Appeals or Cross-Objections, was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the purposes of claiming interest under Section 28 or 34 of the Act and the claimant could claim interest in the State Appeal. It was also observed that the dismissal of the Cross-Objections as being barred by time was wholly irrelevant. This issue was also examined by the Supreme Court in Shri Narain Das Jain (since deceased) by Lrs. Vs. The Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, JT 1991 (1) SC 461 and the relevant observations are as follows:- "The importance of the award of solatium cannot be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of solatium is in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition, it is a hanging mandate for the court to award and supply the omission at any stage where the Court gets occasion to amend or rectify. This is the spirit of the provision, wherever made. ............... We do not appreciate the distinction made by the High Court in this regard. The appellant had all the same not pleaded for grant of solatium in the grounds of appeal before the High Court while claiming enhanced compensation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. ............" This Court in Nagar Mahapalika, Agra Vs. Kalawati Devi, AIR 1976 All. 40 also observed that the claim of solatium is a statutory right and the Court can grant the same even if the claimant has not filed Appeal or Cross-Objection. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits under the amended Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act in the First Appeals filed by the Mandi Samiti in cases where the award of the Reference Court was made a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act 68 of 1984 for calculating the solatium and interest under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The claimant(s) would, however, not be entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act. First Appeal No.392 of 1983 is allowed to the extent that the market rate of the land is reduced to ₹ 20,338.98/- per bigha. The claimant(s) would also be entitled to the benefit of Amending Act 68 of 1984 for calculating the solatium and interest under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The claimant(s) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t Appeal No.1163 of 1988, First Appeal No.771 of 1989, First Appeal No.313 of 1993, First Appeal No.197 of 1996 and First Appeal No.126 of 1991 are dismissed. First Appeal No.207 of 1996 is allowed to the extent that the claimant(s) would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act. First Appeal No. 212 of 1996 is allowed to the extent that the market rate of the land is reduced to ₹ 20,338.98 per bigha. First Appeal No.219 of 1988 is allowed to the extent that the claiman .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version