http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: N.   BOMAN BEHRAM (DEAD) BY L. Rs. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MYSORE & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/07/1974

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

CITATION:  1974 AIR 1717            1975 SCR  (1) 557  1974 SCC  (2) 316

ACT: Mysore  Land  acquisition  Act, (17 of  1961)--Ss  11  &  15 whether  proviso  to  s.  11 Violates Art.  31  (2)  of  the Constitution--Scope of proviso.

HEADNOTE: Section  11 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act (17 of  1961) provides  for an award by the Deputy  Commissioner  allowing compensation  for  the land acquired.  The  proviso  to  the section  states  that  no such award shall be  made  by  the Deputy  Commissioner  without the previous approval  of  the State  Government.  In a petition under article 226  of  the Constitution the appellant whose lands were acquired by  the Government  questioned the validity of the proviso to s.  11 and section 15A of the Act.  The High Court held the proviso to  be valid on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner  was an agent of the State Government and the compensation  fixed under  the  award  was  an  offer  made  on  behalf  of  the Government. On  appeal  to  this Court it was  contended  (1)  that  the proviso  to  section  11  offended  article  31(2)  of   the Constitution and (2) that there were no guide lines for  the approval  of  the  State Government  under  the  proviso  to section 11 of the Act. Dismissing the appeal, HELD  : (1) The award made under section 11 of the 1961  Act is  an offer of compensation.  The Deputy  Commissioner  who makes  an  offer is an agent of the State  Government.   The Government  is the ultimate authority to approve the  award. Therefore  the proviso enjoins that no award shall  be  made without the previous approval of the State Government. it is wrong to suggest that any opinion of the Deputy Commissioner is  being over reached by the State Government.  The  Deputy Commissioner  is not acting in a judicial or  quasi-judicial capacity  in making the award under section 11 of  the  Act. The area of authority of the Deputy Commissioner is  subject to approval by the State Government.  Finality of the  award under section 11 of the Act rests with the State Government. [559F-H] (2)  The Government, in approving the award has to take into consideration the provisions of the Act.  Any grievance with regard to the quantum of compensation or any other grievance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

on  account  of compensation is capable  of  being  remedied under the provisions of the Act. [560A-B] The  provisions  contained in sections 15, 23,  24,  and  26 indicate  that the award under section 11 of the Act is  not final as far as the appellant was concerned.  The matters to be considered in determining the compensation as embodied in section  .23 of the Act are to be kept in mind, not only  by the  Collector under section 15 of the Act but also  by  the court under section 23 of the Act. [560C-D]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1970. (From the Judgment and Order dated the 6th June 1969 of  the Mysore High Court at Bangalore, in Writ Petition No. 3244 of 1968) K.  S.  Ramamurthy, R. A. Gagrat and B. R. Agarwal  for  the appellants. S. V. Gupte and M. Veerappa, for the respondents. 558 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY.,  C.J.-This  is an appeal by  certificate  against  the judgment dated 6 June, 1969 of the High Court at Mysore. The  appellant  was the owner of several acres  of  land  at Bangalore.   The  appellant developed  an  agricultural  and horticultural  Estate on that land.  In the year 1967  there was  a  proposal to acquire the aforesaid  property  of  the appellant.   The  land  acquisition  proceedings  commenced. Possession of the property was taken in the month of  April, 1967.   The notification under section 4 of the Land  Acqui- sition  Act  was  made  in  the  month  of  May,  1967.    A declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act  was made  on  1 July, 1967.  In the month of  August,  1967  the appellant  preferred  claims.  The  claim  for  compensation preferred by the appellant was for Rs. 18,83,650. In the month of September, 1967 the Government paid a sum of 6,50,000/-  as  an  installment.’ On  30  August,  1968  the Government  wrote  to the Divisional Commissioner  that  the Government approved the award for the total of Rs. 6,57,870- 15 in respect of lands measuring 86 acres 2 gunthas. The  appellant made an application under Article 226 of  the Constitution  inter  alia for an order that the  proviso  to section  11 and section 15-A of the Mysore Land  Acquisition Act  17 of 1961 hereinafter referred to as the 1961  Act  be struck down and for further order that a writ of prohibition be  issued  to  the Deputy Commissioner not  to  follow  the instructions  given  by  the Government  in  their  approval letter dated 30 August, 1968.  The appellant also asked  for a writ of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Officer to maintain  their own valuation expressed in the  draft  award dated 24 July, 1968 for the sum of Rs. 13,00,000/-. The  High Court held that the proviso to section 11  of  the 1961  Act is valid.  The reason given by the High  Court  is that  the  Deputy  Commissioner is an  agent  of  the  State Government  and  the compensation fixed in the award  is  an offer made on behalf of the Government.  The reason for  the proviso  to section 11 of the 1961 Act is to eliminate  rare cases  of  Land  Acquisition officers  being  influenced  by extraneous  considerations  in  determining  the  amount  of compensation in excess of the real market value. Counsel  for  the appellant contended that  the  proviso  to section 11 of the 1961 Act is unconstitutional.  Section  11 of  the 1961 Act deals with enquiry and award by  Collector. Section   11  of  the  1961  Act  states  that  the   Deputy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Commissioner shall enquire into objections which any  person interested  has  stated  pursuant to a  notice  given  under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the, value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification  under section 4 sub-section (1), and into  the respective   interests   of   the   persons   claiming   the compensation.   Section 11 of the 1961 Act further  provides that  the Deputy Commissioner shall make an award under  his hand of (i) tile                             559 true  area of the land; (ii) the compensations which in  his opinion  should  be  allowed  for the  land;  and  (ii)  the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom,  or of  whose  claims, he has information, whether or  not  they have respectively appeared before him. Section  15-A of the 1961 states that the  State  Government may  at  any  time before an award is  made  by  the  Deputy Commissioner  under  section  11 call for  and  examine  the record of any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of any inquiry  or proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner  for  the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of  any  order  passed  and as to  the  regularity  of  such proceedings.  If, in any case, it shall appear to the  State Government  that  any  order or proceedings  so  called  for should  be modified, annulled or reversed, it may pass  such order thereon as it deems fit. The  proviso to section 1 1 of the 1961 Act is that no  such award shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner, without  the previous approval of the State Government or such officer as the  State Government may appoint in this behalf who in  the case  of an award made by an officer below the rank  of  the Deputy  Commissioner  of  a  District  may  be  the   Deputy Commissioner of the District.  Section 15-A of the 1961  Act is in aid of the proviso to section 11 of the 1961 Act. Counsel  for  the appellant contended that  the  proviso  to section  11’ of the 1961 Act offended Article 31(2)  of  the Constitution.   The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is  protected under  Article 31(5) of the Constitution.  The proviso  came into  existence  by  the  Mysore Act No.  17’  of  1961  and therefore  counsel for the appellant challenges the same  as an  infraction  of Article 31(2) of the  Constitution.   The contention is utterly unsound.  The Land Acquisition Act  is a  piece  of legislation which provides for  acquisition  of property  for  public  purpose by authority of  law  for  an amount  which  may  be determined  in  accordance  with  the principles specified in the Land Acquisition Act. The  proviso states that no award shall be made without  the previous  approval of the State Government.  An  award  made under   section  11  of  the  1961  Act  is  an   offer   of compensation.  The Deputy Commissioner makes an offer.   The Deputy  Commissioner  is an agent of  the  Government.   The Government  is the ultimate authority to approve the  award. Therefore,  the proviso enjoins that no award shall be  made without  the previous approval of the State Government.   It is  wrong  to  suggest  that  any  opinion  of  the   Deputy Commissioner  is being overreached by the State  Government. The Deputy Commissioner is not acting in judicial or  quasi- judicial  capacity in making the award under section  11  of the   1961  Act.   The  Deputy  Commissioner  acts   in   an administrative capacity as an agent of the State Government. The area of authority of the Deputy Commissioner is  subject to  approval by the State Government.  The finality  of  the award under section 11 of the 1961 Act rests with the  State Government.

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

Counsel  for  the  appellant submitted that  there  were  no guidelines  for the approval by the State  Government  under the proviso to section 560 11  of the 1961 Act.  This is an erroneous submission.   The Government   in  approving  the  award  has  to  take   into consideration the provisions of the Act.  Any grievance with regard to the quantum of compensation or any other grievance on  account  of compensation is capable  of  being  remedied under the provisions of the Act. The award made under section 11 of the 1961 Act is  required to  be filed in the Collectors office.  Under section 15  of the  1961  Act the Collector in determining  the  amount  of compensation shall be guided by the provisions contained  in sections  23 and 24 of the 1961 Act.  Any person  interested who  has not accepted the award may, by written  application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector  for the determination of the Court under  section 18 of the 1961 Act.  The Court in determining the amount  of compensation  to  be awarded shall take  into  consideration matters  provided  in  section 23 of the  1961  Act.   Under section 26 of the 1961 Act the award shall be deemed to be a decree.   These  provisions  indicate that  an  award  under section 11 of the 1961 Act is not final as far as the appel- lant  is  concerned.   The  matters  to  be  considered   in determining  the compensation as embodied in section  23  of the  1961  Act  are  to be kept in  mind  not  only  by  the Collector  under section 15 of the 1961 Act but also by  the court under section 23 of the 1961 Act. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court is upheld. The  appeal  fails and is dismissed.  Parties will  pay  and bear their own costs in this appeal. P. B. R.                    Appeal dismissed. 561