http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: D. N. SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/11/1997

BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.B. Majmudar, J.      Leave granted.      We have  heard learned  counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.      The  short   question  is   whether  the   Commissioner exercising powers  under the  proviso to  Section 11  of the Land Acquisition  Act, 1984  (’the Act’  for  short),  while granting approval  to the  proposal of  the Land Acquisition Collector  regarding   the  award  of  compensation  to  the claimants could  reduce the  suggested amount  for different categories of lands sought to be acquired.      The High  Court relying  upon its  earlier decision has taken a view that the Commissioner has no such power.  It is true that  the proviso to Section 11 lays down that no award shall   be made  by the  Collector under  sub-section (1) of Section 11  of the  Act without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may  authorise in  his behalf  and acting  on the said proviso  the state of Bihar by notification dated March 13, 1995  had authorised the Commissioner of the Division in such class  of cases  where the  total compensation  exceeds Rupees Five Lacs but does not exceed Rupees Fifteen Lacs, to be the  authority under  the proviso to Section 11(1) of the act. The  High Court’s  decision cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the view which appealed to the High Court relying upon  its earlier  decision has  been upset  by this Court in  its decision  dated 30th November 1993 rendered in Civil Appeal  arising out  of S.L.P.  (C) No.  7873 of 1993. Following the  said  decision  it  must  be  held  that  the Commissioner could have exercised powers under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.      However, that  would not  be the  end  of  the  matter. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that according to him,  as the  lands acquired  in  this  case  were  about Ac.1.15 gunths,  the total  award offered  by the  Collector would not  be Rs. 5 lacs but would be much less.  Therefore, even assuming  that the Commissioner had authority to decide the question  under the  proviso to Section 11(1), if he was not the  competent authority  he could  not have reduced the

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

amount  of   compensation.     Mr.  Singh,  learned  counsel appearing for  the  State  of  Bihar,  on  the  other  hand, submitted  that   the  award   under  Section   11(1)  is  a comprehensive award  and, therefore,  if number of pieces of lands are acquired by the same notification, the award would be  a  composite  one  awarding  compensation  to  different claimants.   And if the total amount of compensation offered in such an award exceeds Rs.5 lacs, it would fall within the powers of  the authority  entrusted  with  the  function  of approval under  the proviso  to Section  11(1) of  the  Act. Learned counsel  for the  respondents, on  the  other  hand, submitted that  if that  was so,  then question  wold  arise whether the  total compensation computed by the Collector as payable to all the claimants together would work out to more than Rs.15  lacs in which case the Commissioner would not be the competent  authority to  act under  proviso  to  Section 11(1) of the Act but it would be the State Government as the award would  exceed Rs.  15 lacs,   As these aspects are not dealt with  by the  High Court, we deem it fit and proper to set aside  the order under appeal and remand the proceedings by restoring the writ petition on the file of the High Court with a  request to  proceed further  in accordance  with law after hearing  the parties concerned.  We make it clear that we are  not expressing  any opinion  on the  merits  of  the controversies raised before us on this aspect and it will be for the  High Court  to decide  the same  on its  own in the light of  the relevant evidence which may be produced before it.  The appeal is allowed accordingly.   No costs.