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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1085  of  2001

PETITIONER: AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/02/2001

BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu. & S.N. Variava.

JUDGMENT:

S. N. VARIAVA, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

Leave granted.

   This  Appeal has been filed against a Judgment dated 5th January,  2000,  wherein  a  writ   petition  filed  by  the Appellant has been dismissed.

   On 30th January, 1989, a notification under Section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act 1894 had been issued for acquiring approximately  751.22 acres of land.  On 8th February, 1990, notification  under Section 6 was issued.  On 29th February, 1992,  Award  was made.  This land had been acquired by  the Appellant  for development of the Taj Nagri Avas Yojna Phase II.   Under the Award the compensation has been fixed at the rate  of  Rs.   130/- per sq.  yd.  for  the  land  situated inside  the  municipal area and at the rate of Rs.97.50  per sq.  yd.  for the land situated outside the municipal area.

   The   Appellants   are  aggrieved  by  the   fixing   of compensation  at the above mentioned rates.  As the land was acquired for their benefit they cannot, by virtue of Section 50  of  the Land Acquisition Act, demand a  reference  under Section  18.  The Appellants have thus challenged the Award. The  Writ  Petition  came to be dismissed  by  the  impugned Judgment dated 5th January, 2000.

   It  was  also  urged that the Special  Land  Acquisition Officer   had  played  a  fraud  in  fixing  the   rate   of compensation.   The only basis for this submission was  that the  Agreement,  on  which reliance was placed  to  fix  the compensation,  contained  two different prices at  different places.   We  find  no substance in  this  submission.   The Agreement  is a registered document.  The price relied on is the  price  shown  in the records.  There is  also,  on  the Agreement, the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar showing what the  correct  price was.  All this makes it clear  that  the price relied upon is the correct price in the Agreement.

   It  is next urged that the Appellants were not given any

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

opportunity to adduce evidence in the proceedings before the Collector  for fixation of the cost of acquisition.  It  was fairly  admitted  that  the  Appellants were  aware  of  the proceedings.  However, no notice had been issued to them and they  had not been given any opportunity to adduce  evidence for purposes of determining the amount of compensation.

   To  this submission no adequate answer could be given by the  Respondents.   All  that  was submitted  was  that  the Appellants  were  aware  of  the proceedings  and  had  held meetings with the Government and the Collector.  In our view this  is not sufficient.  What is required by Section 50  of the  Land  Acquisition  Act is that the body  for  whom  the property is being acquired is given an opportunity to appear and  adduce  evidence  for the purposes of  determining  the amount  of compensation.  Nothing could be shown to us  that this had been done.  On this point the matter requires to be sent  back  to  the  Special Land  Acquisition  Officer  for refixing compensation payable.

   Thus the Appeal is allowed.  We remit the matter back to the  Special  Land  Acquisition Officer  for  re-fixing  the compensation  payable after giving a notice to the Appellant to  appear and adduce evidence before him.  As the matter is being  remitted back, we clarify that if any other party  is desirous  of  adducing further evidence, they will  also  be entitled to do so.  After considering the material, which is placed  before  him,  the Special Land  Acquisition  officer shall fix the compensation and re-declare or amend his Award appropriately within a period of six months from today.

   Before  we  part with this Appeal it must  be  mentioned that  by  an interim order dated 9th May, 2000, stay to  the operation  of  the  Award, had been granted subject  to  the Appellant’s depositing compensation at the rate of Rs.  78/- per  sq.  yard within the Municipal limits and Rs.  58/- per sq.   yard  outside the Municipal limits.  We were  informed that this amount has been deposited.  By an order dated 29th September, 2000 this Court permitted the competent authority to  disburse  the amount deposited.  We have been told  that the  amount has already been disbursed.  Mr.  Sibal has very fairly  stated that the competent authority need not  recall the  amounts  disbursed from the persons to whom  they  have been  paid.  We clarify that, as the acquisition proceedings are  not  being set aside and the Special  Land  Acquisition Officer  is merely being directed to refix the compensation, the amounts already disbursed pursuant to the orders of this Court  will not be recalled but will be finally adjusted  in the compensation which is ultimately found to be payable.

   We  also  clarify  that  if  the  acquisition  has  been challenged  in  any proceedings, this order will not  affect those  proceedings.   The concerned court will decide  those proceedings on their own merits.

   The Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.  There shall be no order as to costs.