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

PETITIONER: UJJAIN VIKAS PRADHIKARAN,(UJJAIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY)

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TARACHAND & ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   206        1996 SCALE  (5)685

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH         CIVIL APPEAL NOs.9515,9514 AND 9516 OF 1996   [Arising out of SLP (C) No.2907/94, 20152/3 and 300/95)                          O R D E R      The objection  as regards abatement is overruled. Delay in filing  the application  for  substitution  is  condoned. Abatement is set aside.      Substitution allowed.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      Notification   under   Section   4(1)   of   the   Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (for  short, the ‘Act’) was published on February  16, 1979.  Possession of  the land was taken on May  19,   1979.  The   Land  Acquisition   Officer  awarded compensation by his award under Section 11 on April 21, 1980 @ Rs.27,500/-  per hectare. On reference, the District Judge by  his   award  dated   November  10,   1987  enhanced  the compensation  to   Rs.50,000/-  per  hectare  together  with solatium and  interest @ 15% and 6% respectively. On appeal, the High  Court enhanced  the compensation  by judgment  and decree dated August 26, 1992 in Appeal No.17/88 and batch to Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare which worked out @ Rs.26,125/- per bigha.  The  High  Court  also  enhanced  the  solatium  and interest respectively  at 30% and 9% from the date of taking possession for one year and 15% thereafter.      The first  contention  raised  by  Shri  A.D.  Chitale, learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  is  that  the respondents having  confined their  claim to  enhancement of the compensation  to Rs.20,000/- per bigha in the memorandum in grounds  filed in  the High  Court, the  High  Court  was clearly in  error in awarding compensation @ Rs.26,125/- per bigha, i.e.,  at Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare. We find force in the contention. Though Mr. S.K. Gambhir, learned counsel for the claimants, contended that there is no prohibition to the respondents to claim higher compensation after the Amendment Act 68  of 1984  had come  into force,  the High  Court  was

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

justified in enhancing the compensation. We find no force in the contention.      It is true that under Section 22(2) of the Act prior to the Amendment,  the Court  was  prohibited  to  enhance  the compensation in  excess of  the amount  claimed pursuant  to notices issued  under Sections  9 and  10 of  the Act. Since sub-section (2)  of Section  22 was deleted by Amendment Act 68 of  1984, the  limitation on the exercise of the power of the Court  was taken  away. Nonetheless,  it would always be open to  a party  to claim  a particular  amount and  having claimed at  the rate, the question arises: whether the Court could grant  compensation higher  than that  claimed by  the party?  It  would  be  obvious  that  when  a  party  claims compensation at  a particular  rate, he  assesses the market value  of  the  land  at  that  particular  rate  and  seeks compensation on that basis. Having assessed the compensation at that  particular rate,  the question emerges: whether the Court could  grant higher  compensation than was assessed by the  party?  We  find  the  answer  in  the  negative.  This principle squarely  applies to the facts in these cases. The party having  limited the  compensation to  Rs.20,000/-  per bigha in  the memorandum  of appeal filed in the High Court, it ’ would be obvious that the respondents claimed that they were  entitled   to  the   maximum  of  the  compensation  @ Rs.20,000.- per  bigha. Thereby  the Court  was precluded to award compensation  beyond the  amount claimed  by the party and award  in excess thereof would be obviously illegal. The power of  the Court  would be  confined to the difference of the amount  awarded by  the reference  Court and  the amount claimed in  the memorandum  of the  appeal but not in excess thereof.      Considered from this perspective, we hold that the High Court was  clearly in  error  in  awarding  compensation  in excess of the amount claimed by the respondents.      The  appeals   of  the  Ujjain  Vikas  Pradhikaran  are accordingly allowed to the above extent.      The appeal of the claimants is dismissed. The claimants are entitled  to the  compensation at  Rs.20,000/- per bigha with solatium  and interest as awarded by the High Court. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.