http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/03/1986

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) MADON, D.P.

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1164            1986 SCR  (1) 603  1986 SCC  (2) 343        1986 SCALE  (1)1265

ACT:      Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226.      Land Acquisition  Act., 1894  - Sections 11, 18, 25 and 50(2).

HEADNOTE:      Award of  Collector under  s.11 -  Whether  Government, Company or local authority can seek a reference under s. 18, except on  grounds  of  fraud,  corruption  or  collusion  - Whether petition  under Article  226 filed  by Government or anyone claiming  through  it,  challenging  the  Collector’s order declining to make reference under s.18 maintainable.      Pursuant to  the awards  made under  s.11 of  the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894  by  the  Collector  determining  the compensation proposed  to be  paid  to  appellants  for  the acquisition of  their lands, the appellants sought reference under s.18 for enhancement of compensation.      The Central Ware-housing Corporation, at whose instance the land  was acquired, also felt aggrieved by the amount of compensation  determined  by  the  Collector  and  sought  a reference to  the Civil  Court under  s.18 for  reducing the amount. The  Collector rejected  this request  on the ground that such  a reference  was barred by the proviso to s.50(2) of the Act.      In the writ petition under Article 226, the Corporation challenged the  awards. The  High Court set aside the awards and itself determined the compensation at a reduced rate.      Allowing the appeals of the land-owners to this Court, ^      HELD :  1. The High Court was wrong in entertaining the writ petitions  challenging awards  made  by  the  Collector under 604 the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 and claiming that the amount awarded was excessive. [609 F]      2. The  scheme of  the Act  is that,  apart from fraud, corruption or  collusion, the amount of compensation awarded by the  Collector under  s.11 may  not be  questioned in any proceeding either  by the  Government or  by the  Company or Local Authority  at whose  instance the acquisition is made. Section 50(2)  and s.25  lead to that inevitable conclusion. What may not be done under the provisions of the Act may not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

be permitted  to be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court  under Article  226. Article  226 is not meant to avoid or  circumvent  the  processes  of  the  law  and  the provisions of the statute. [607 E-G]      3. When  s. 50(2)  expressly bars  the company or local authority  at   whose  instance  acquisition  is  made  from demanding a  reference under  s.18 notwithstanding that such company or local authority may be allowed to adduce evidence before the Collector, and when s. 25 expressly prohibits the Court from reducing the amount of compensation while dealing with the reference under s.18, it is clearly not permissible for  the   company  or   local  authority   to  invoke   the jurisdiction  of   the  High  Court  under  Article  226  to challenge  the   amount  to   compensation  awarded  by  the Collector and to have it reduced. [ 607 G-H; 608 A]      4. The  Collector, in making an award, acts as an agent of the Government, and the legal character of the award made by the  Collector is  that of  a tender  or offer  by him on behalf of  the Government  and, therefore, the Government or anyone who  could but  claim through  the Government  cannot question  the   award  apart   from  fraud,   corruption  or collusion. [608 C-E]      Ezra v.  Secretary  of  State  for  India,  (32  Indian Appelas 93  = I.L.R.  32, Calcutta  605); Harish  Chandra v. Deputy  Land  Acquisition  Officer,  [1962]  1  S.C.R.  676; Mohammad Hasnuddin  v. State of Maharashtra, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 265 at  274; Municipal  Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel & Ors., [1971] 2 SCC 821 relied upon.      Abdul Karim Allarkha v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1982 SC 61; Town Improvement Trust, Gwalior v. Sahajirao., A.I.R. 1978 MP 218 distinguished. 605

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal Nos. 928- 930 of 1986.      From the Judgment and Order dated 17th January, 1983 of the Madhya  Pradesh High  Court in  Misc. Petition Nos. 397, 540 and 566 of 1980.      L.N. Sinha,  T.U. Mehta, B.R.L. Iyengar and P.P. Juneja for the Appellants.      K.C. Mittal,  M.C. Bhandari,  Miss Asha  Rani Jain  and Tara Chand Sharma for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. These  appeals by special leave of this Court  raise the  same question  and may, therefore, be disposed of  by  a  common  judgment.  For  the  purpose  of constructing godowns for the Central Warehousing Corporation and at  the instance  of  the  Corporation,  the  Collector, Khandwa District published a notification under section 4 of the Land  Acquisition Act  proposing to acquire certain land belonging to the appellants. The declaration under section 6 was duly made and possession of the land was also taken from the appellants.  The Collector  made Awards under sec. 11 of the Land  Acquisition Act  in  January  and  February,  1980 determining the  compensation proposed  to be  paid  to  the appellants. The  appellants sought references under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation and we are told that the references are awaiting adjudication by the Civil  Court. The  Central Warehousing  Corporation  was also aggrieved  by the  amount of compensation determined by the Collector  and sought  a reference  to the  Civil  Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

under s.  18 of  the Land  Acquisition Act  for reducing the amount. The  Collector rejected  the request  for  making  a reference on  the ground that such a reference as was sought by the  Central Warehousing  Corporation was  barred by  the proviso to  s. 50(2)  of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereupon the Corporation  filed writ  petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the awards.  The High  Court set aside the awards and itself determined the compensation at a reduced rate. The 606 erstwhile owners  of  the  land  have  filed  appeals  after obtaining special  leave from  this Court  under Art. 136 of the Constitution.      The principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was  that the  High Court  was wholly in error in entertaining writ  petitions to challenge Awards made by the Collector under  the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the amount  awarded was  excessive and  that too  not at the instance of  the Government  but  at  the  instance  of  the Corporation at  whose request  the acquisition was made. The learned counsel  argued that  the  Award  of  the  Collector constituted, in  law, an  offer by  the Government  to pay a certain price  for the  land proposed to be acquired. It was open to  the person  entitled to accept the determination by the Collector  and receive  the compensation or to object to the amount  determined by the Collector and seek a reference to  the   Civil  Court   for  proper  determination  of  the compensation. The Award by the Collector being in the nature of an  offer by the Collector, there would be no question of the  Collector   or  the  Government  on  whose  behalf  the acquisition was made challenging the award in any proceeding by way  of reference  to the  Civil Court or otherwise. What the Government  and the  Collector were  not entitled to do, obviously, the  person at whose instance the acquisition was made would  also not  be entitled  to do.  We have  no doubt about the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.      Section 4  of the  Land  Acquisition  Act  enables  the Government, whenever  land is  needed for any public purpose or for a company to publish a notification to that effect in the  official   Gazette.  After   hearing   objections,   or straightaway,  where  such  hearing  is  dispensed  with  on account of  urgency, the  Government is required by sec.6 of the Act  to make  a declaration  that any particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a company. Thereafter the Collector is  required to  invite claims to compensation for all interests  in such  land. The Collector is then required by sec.11  of the Act to enquire into the objections and the claims and  determine  and  apportion  the  compensation  by making an  award. A  proviso added by way of an amendment in 1984 stipulates that no award shall be made by the Collector without the  previous approval  of the  Government or of the officer authorised by the Government in 607 that behalf.  Section 18  enables any  person interested who has not accepted the award to require the Collector to refer the matter  for the determination of the court, ’whether his objection be  to the  measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation,  the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment  of   the  compensation   among  the   persons interested.’ Here  we must  refer to s. 50(2) of the Act and the proviso thereto which are as follows :-           "Section 50(2).  In any  proceeding held  before a           Collector  or   Court  in  such  cases  the  local           authority or  Company  concerned  may  appear  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

         adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the           amount of compensation.           Provided that  no such  local authority or Company           shall be  entitled to  demand  a  reference  under           section 18." Section  25   further  prescribes   that   the   amount   of compensation awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded  by the  Collector  under  s.11.  Section  54 provides for  an appeal to the High Court from the award, or from any  part of  the award,  of the  Court but it does not prescribe who may appeal to the High Court.      In our view there cannot be any possible doubt that the scheme of  the Act  is that, apart from fraud, corruption or collusion,  the   amount  of  compensation  awarded  by  the Collector under  s. 11  of the  Act may not be questioned in any proceeding either by the Government or by the Company or Local authority  at whose  instance the acquisition is made. Section 50(2)  and s. 25 lead to that inevitable conclusion. Surely what  may not be done under the provisions of the Act may not be permitted to be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the  High Court  under Art. 226. Art. 226 is not meant to avoid or  circumvent  the  processes  of  the  law  and  the provisions of  the statute. When s. 50(2) expressly bars the company or local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made  from demanding  a reference under s. 18 of the Act, notwithstanding that  such Company or Local authority may be allowed to adduce evidence before the Collector, and when s. 25 expressly prohibits the court from reducing the amount of compensation while dealing 608 with  the   reference  under   s.  18,  it  is  clearly  not permissible for the company or local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of  the High  Court under Art. 226 to challenge the amount  of compensation  awarded by the Collector and to have it reduced.      Long ago, it was held in Ezra v. Secretary of State for India, 32 Indian Appeals 93 = I.L.R. 32, Calcutta 605 and it has never been doubted since, ’that the ’Award’ in which the enquiry by  the  Collector  results  is  merely  a  decision (binding only  on the  Collector) as  to what  sum shall  be tendered to  the owners  of  the  lands’  and  that,  ’if  a judicial ascertainment  of value is desired by the owner, he can obtain  it by requiring the matter to be referred by the Collector to  the Court.’  As pointed  out by  this Court in Harish Chandra  v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 676,  the observations of the Privy Council in Ezra’s case indicate  that the  Collector, in making an award, acts as an  agent of  the Government and that the legal character of the  award made  by the  Collector is that of a tender or offer by  him on behalf of the Government (See also Mohammad Hasnuddin v.  State of  Maharashtra), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 265 at 274. If  the Collector  making an award was in law making an offer on  behalf of  the  Government,  it  is  difficult  to appreciate how  the Government or anyone who could but claim through the  Government would  be entitled  to question  the award, apart from fraud, corruption or collusion.      The learned  counsel for  the respondents  invited  our attention to  Abdul Karim  Allarkha v.  State of  Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 61 to urge that "a reference may be had not only at  the instance  of a  person interested,  who has not accepted the  award or  the amount  thereof, but also at the instance of  the authority  acquiring the  land, that is, on whose behalf  or the  company for  which the  acquisition is being made. "The decision in this case turned on the express provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, sec. 18(1)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

of which  expressly enabled ’the State Government department on whose  behalf or  the company  for which  acquisition  is being made or any person interested who has not accepted the award  to  make  a  written  application  to  the  Collector requiring that  the matter  be referred by the Collector for the determination  of the Court. This case is, therefore, of no assistance  whatsoever to  the respondents.  The  learned counsel for  the respondents also drew our attention to Town Improvement Trust, 609 Gwalior v.  Sahajirao, A.I.R. 1978 M.P. 218. The decision in the case  turned upon  an interpretation  of the  expression ’person  interested’   defined  in   sec.3(b)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act.  In the  first place,  we are not satisfied that the  definition is  capable of  the wide interpretation given by  the learned  judges and  in the  second place, the question  does  not  really  turn  on  the  meaning  of  the expression ’person  interested’, but  turns on the scheme of the Act and the scope of sections 25 and 50(2) of the Act      On the  other hand,  the decision  of this court in the Municipal Corporation  of the City of Ahemdabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel  & Ors.,  [1971] 3 S.C.C. 821 appears to run along the  same lines  as that indicated by us. In that case certain  lands   belonging  to  the  first  respondent  were notified for  acquisition by  the Government  of Bombay "for school  and   neighbourhood  work".   The  first  respondent challenged the notification for acquisition by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat which was allowed. The Municipal Corporation  of Ahmedabad  preferred an  appeal to the  Supreme  Court.  A  preliminary  objection  was  raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal by the Municipal Corporation and  the objection  was sought  to be met on the plea that  the acquisition  was for the use of the Municipal Corporation. The  court  upheld  the  preliminary  objection observing, "The  property, it  is  true,  was  notified  for acquisition by  the State  Government for  the  use  of  the Municipal  Corporation   after  it   was  acquired   by  the Government, but  that, in  our judgment,  did not confer any interest in  the Municipal Corporation so as to enable it to file an  appeal against the order of the High Court allowing the petition".  We are,  therefore, firmly  of the view that the High  Court was  wrong in  entertaining  writ  petitions challenging awards  made by  the Collector  under  the  Land Acquisition Act  and claiming  that the  amount awarded  was excessive. The  appeals are  allowed with costs and the writ petitions filed in the High Court are dismissed. A.P.J.                                      Appeals allowed. 610