http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/03/1976

BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1976 AIR 1721            1976 SCR  (3) 565  1977 SCC  (1)  46  CITATOR INFO :  F          1978 SC 533  (9)

ACT:      Bombay Merged  Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act (Bombay  39 of  1954), SS.  8, 11,  13, 14,  15 and  22- Principles  of   compensation-Solatium  and  interest,  when payable-’Three multiples’, meaning of.      Land Acquisition  Act (1  of  1894),  ss.  23  and  26- solatium, if compensation.      Code of Civil Procedure (,Act 5 of 1908), O. 41, r. 22- Applicability to tribunals.      Constitution  of  India,  1950,  Art.  136-Exercise  of discretion under.

HEADNOTE:      on  the   coming  into   force  of  the  Bombay  Merged Territories and  Areas (Jagirs  Abolition) Act  1953, on and from August  1, 1954,  the jagirs were abolished and certain properties comprised  therein  vested  in  the  State.  Some compensation was  awarded by  the Jagir Abolition officer to the jagirdars  on their  application, in  respect of certain items. On,  appeal by  the jagirdars,  the Revenue  Tribunal modified the  award. Aggrieved  by the  decision,  both  the State and  the jagirdars  filed petitions and the High Court decided some  points against the  State and some against the jagirdars and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. Both side appealed to this Court under Art. 136.      on behalf  of the  State it  was  contended  that:  (1) compensation  for   the  unbuilt  village  site  lands.  (2) solatium of  15% on  the amount  of  compensation.  and  (3) interest on the amount of instalments of compensation, which were delayed,  should not  have been  awarded. The jagirdars contended that  (1) the  expression ’three  multiples’ in s. 11(2) means  six times and so the compensation should be six times the assessment and not three times as held by the High Court; (2)  the Bagyat  Kas should have been included in the assessment for  the purpose  of assessing  the compensation; and (3)  the Tribunal  had no power and was not justified in reducing the rates of the value of the village site lands. ^      HELD: The  appeals of  the State  are partly allowed on its 2nd and 3rd contentions and the appeals of the jagirdars

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

are dismissed.      (1) The  jagirdars are entitled to compensation for all unbuilt village site lands. [572F]      Section 11(3)  provides that  any jagirdar  having  any right or interest in any property referred to in s. 8 shall, if he  proved to  the satisfaction  of the Collector that he had any  such right or interest, be entitled to compensation in the  manner provided  in clauses  (1) to  (iii). In these clauses there  is reference only to 3 kinds of property, but there are  numerous other  properties mentioned in s. 8. The unbuilt village site land is one such. The jagirdar would be entitled to  compensation for  rights or  interests in  them under s.  11(3), but  no manner  of awarding compensation is indicated therein. Literally the language of sub-s. (3) does not make sense, and so, it should be understood as providing that the  person  whose  rights  had  been  extinguished  is entitled to  compensation, in  respect of  the properties in which he  had an  interest,  in  accordance  with  the  Land Acquisition  Act,   1894,  but  subject  to  the  exceptions provided in clauses (1) to (iii). [572C-F]      (2) The  Legislature did  not intend nor did it provide for  the   payment  of   any  solatium   on  the  amount  of compensation awardable to the jagirdars. [574C]      The concept  of compensation  means just  equivalent or market value  of the  property acquired. Section 23(1), Land Acquisition Act provides that in deter 566 mining compensation   various  factors over  and  above  the market value  are to  be taken  into account.  Section 23(2) provides for  the payment  of 15%  of the  market  value  as solatium  in   addition  to   the  market  value.  That  the legislature did  not intend  to give  any  solatium  to  the jagirdars as  compensation is clear from (a) the Explanation to s.  11 of  the Jagirs Abolition Act, which defines market value, refers  only to  s. 23(1)  and  not  s.  23(2),  Land Acquisition Act.  (b)  Section  15,  Jagirs  Abolition  Act, provides that every award under s. 13 or ors. 14 shall be in the form  prescribed in  s. 26(1),  Land Acquisition Act but solatium is  not mentioned  in the  prescribed form  of  the award under  s. 26(1).  and (c)  solatium is  awarded  as  a special compensation  in  consideration  of  the  compulsory nature of the acquisition. But when Jagirs are abolished and acquired as  a  measure  of  agrarian  reform  even  without payment of  market value  as compensation,  the  Legislature could not  have intended  to award any solatium in addition. [573H-574C]      Stare of Gujarat etc. v. Vaktsinghji Sursinghji Baghela JUDGMENT:      R. D.  Suryanarayana  Rao  v.  The  Revenue  Divisional officer, Land Acquisition officer, Guntur, A.I.R. 1969, A.P. 55 and Kesireddi Appala Swamy and ors. v. Special Tehsildar. Land  Acquisition   officer,  Central  Railway,  Vijayawada, A.I.R. 1970 A.P. 139 (approved)      (3) Section 22, Jagirs Abolition Act, provides that the amount of  compensation shall  be  payable  in  transferable bonds carrying interest at 3% per annum from the date of the issue of  such bonds  and shall be repayable during a period of 20  years from  the date  of the  issue by equated annual instalments of  principal and  interest as  provided in  the Tables to the Act. Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act, provides that  the date  of the coming into force of the Act shall be the date of issue of the bond. The ascertainment of the amount of compensation is bound to take time and so, the proviso to  r. S  made the  instalments which had fallen due before the  delivery of  the bond  payable immediately after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

its delivery. [574E-575A]      In the  present case  the Jagirdar  was deprived of his property on August 1, 1954, but the bonds were delivered ten years later.  The High  Court following  Satinder  Singh  v. Amrao Singh  and others [1961] 3 S.C.R. 676, rightly allowed interest but  erred on  two aspects: (a) It awarded interest on the entire amount of instalments, principal and interest, paid after  the lapse of ten years. Interest is payable only on the principal amount of instalments but not on the amount of instalments  of interest.  (b) The  jagirdar would not be entitled  to  interest  on  the  total  instalments  of  the principal for  10 years. On the first instalment he will get interest for  9 years  only, on  the second for 8 years only and on the last instalment for one year only. [575D-F; 576B- D]      (4) The  High Court  rightly held  that  there  was  no difference between ’3 times’ and ’3 multiples’. [576G]      Although the  Legislature has used the two expressions, one in  some places  and the  other in  other places, it was done without  any significance  or variation. The expression ’equivalent to  3 multiples’  is used in the sense of common parlance and not in a technical, mathematical or. scientific sense. [576F-G]      (5)(a) Bagyat Kas is not a part of the assessment fixed for the land within the meaning of s. 11(2).      ’Kas’ means  tax. Bagyat  lands are  those  which  have irrigational facilities  of water  from wells  etc. On  such land, apart  from the  assessment fixed, Bagyat kas was also levied. It  could not  be  contended-by  the  jagirdar  that Bagyat kas  was a  part of  the land assessment, because, in the  records   of  the   jagirdars,  Bagyat  kas  was  shown separately from  the amount of assessment on land. If it was only a  different kind  of assessment  fixed for a different type of land, then there was no necessity of showing it as a separate item. [577B-E]      (b) No  separate compensation has been provided for the loss of  the Bagyat  kas which the jagirdars were realising, but it  is for  the Legislature to provide and Courts cannot help. [577F] 567      (6)  Taking  the  totality  of  the  circumstances  the jagirdar’s appeal  on the  last point, is not a fit case for interference by this Court under Art. 136.      Under s.  16 read with s. 17, Jagirs Abolition Act, the State has  no right  of appeal  to the  Tribunal. The  State could not,  also have  challenged under o. 41, r. 22. C.P.C. the rates  of compensation  given  by  the  Jagir  Abolition officer. But  in appeal  filed by  the  jagirdar  the  State persuaded the  Tribunal to  reduce the rates of compensation in some  cases. Since, however, the area of the village site lands was  increased by  the Tribunal,  as  it  was  of  the opinion that  certain lands  were wrongly  excluded  by  the jagir Abolition officer, the net result was that in spite of the reduction of rates, more compensation was payable to the jagirdars for the village site lands. [577G-578C]      The Management of Itakhoolie Tea Estate v. Its Workmen, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1349, referred to.

&      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos.  1804 and 1805 of 1970 and 1968 of 1970.      (Appeals by  special leave  from the judgment and order dated the  27th/25th August,  1969 of the Gujarat High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

in Special Civil Application Nos. 868 and 891 of 1965).      S. T.  Desai, G.  A. Shah  and M.  N. Shroff,  for  the appellants in CAs 1804-1805/70 & for respondents 1 & 2 in CA 1968/70.      V. M.  Tarkunde, 1.  N. Shroff  and H.  S. Parihar, for respondents 2  & 3 in CAs 1804-1805/70 and for appellants in CAs 1968/70.      D. V.  Patel, S.  N. Parikh  and M. Qamaruddin, for the interveners in CA 1804/70.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      UNTWALIA, J.-These three appeals by special leave arise out of   a  common Judgment of the Gujarat High Court and in them are  involved some  common questions  of law  as to the interpretation of  certain provisions  of the  Bombay Merged Territories and  Areas (Jagirs  Abolition) Act,  1953-Bombay Act No.  XXXIX of 1954-herein - after referred to as the Act or the  Jagirs Abolition  Act. The  three appeals  have been heard together and are being disposed of by this L judgment.      on coming into force of the Act on and from 1st August, 1954 the  Jagirs of the Jagirdars were abolished and certain properties comprised  in the jagirs vested in the State. The Jagirdars filed  before the Collector applications for award of  compensation   under  the  Act  in  respect  of  certain properties. The Jagir Abolition officer authorised to act as the Collector under the Act awarded some compensation to the Jagirdars in  respect  of  some  items  of  the  properties, refused in  respect of  some and  made his award on the 30th July, 1963.  The Jagirdars  (which expression  would include their heirs  also) filed  an appeal  under section 16 of the Act before  the Gujarat  Revenue  Tribunal,  Ahmedabad.  The Tribunal modified  the award  of the Jagir Abolition officer in some  respects and  disposed of  the appeal  on the 2/3rd December, 1964. Two Special Civil Applications under Article 227 of  the Constitution  of India  were filed  in the  High Court from  the decision  of the Revenue Tribunal-one by the Jagirdars and  the other  by the  State of Gujarat. The High Court has disposed of the 568 two applications  by a  common judgment  dated the  ’27/28th August, 1969,  decided some points against the jagirdars and some against  the State and remanded the case to the Revenue Tribunal for  a fresh decision in the light of the judgment. Feeling aggrieved  by the  decision of the High Court in the two Special  Civil Applications,  the State  of Gujarat  has preferred Civil  Appeals 1804  and 1805  of 1970 on grant of special leave  by this  Court. The  Jagirdars also  obtained special leave and filed Civil Appeal No. 1968 of 1970.      Under section  3 of  the Act  on and from the appointed date i.e.  1st August,  1954 all  Jagirs were deemed to have been abolished.  Section S provided as to who were to be the occupants of  certain types  of lands in a proprietary jagir village. Similarly section 6 referred to the persons to were to be  the occupants  in life-time Jiwai Jagir. The rates of assessment were  to be  fixed under  section  7.  Section  8 provided  for  the  vesting  of  the  properties  enumerated therein in  the State  Government and  the extinguishment of the rights of the Jagirdars thereunder. Section 9 deals with right to  trees and  section 10  refers to  mines or mineral products. Section  11 provides  for compensation to jagirdar and section 12 makes provision for compensation to life-time  Jiwai  Jagirdars. The  method of  awarding compensation  to Jagirdar is  indicated in  section  13  and  the  method  of awarding compensation  for abolition etc. Of rights of other persons in  the property  is provided in section 14. Section 15 makes  applicable provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

1894 in the making of an award.      In the  High Court  the concerned  Jagirdars challenged the order  of the  Revenue Tribunal  in respect of 8 matters enumerated  in   its  judgment.  The  State  challenged  the decision of  the Tribunal  in regard to 3 matters   only. In these  appeals  we  were  not  called  upon  to  decide  the correctness of  the High  Court’s judgment in regard to each and every  item. In  argument the points of controversy were confined only  to a  few on  either side.  On behalf  of the State Mr.  S. T. Desai at the end of his argument endeavored to challenge  the decision  of the  High Court directing the award of some compensation for the Bhatha lands in the river beds and  the trees  in certain  other lands  but eventually could not  press these  points by  advancing any argument of substance. It  is, therefore,  not necessary  for us to deal with these  two items  in any detail. We merely uphold   the order of the High Court in this regard.      on behalf  of the State the strenuous attack was on the question of compensation for the unbuilt village site lands, award of  solatium of  15% on the amount of compensation and award of  interest on the amounts of instalments the payment of which was delayed. Mr. Y. M.  Tarkunde, appearing for the Jagirdars, followed  by Mr.  D. V. Patel, appearing for some of the  intervener jagirdars  attacked the  decision of  the High Court on three counts:-           (1)  that the  expression three multiples occuring                in sub  section (2)  of section 11 of the Act                means at  least six  times of  the assessment                and not  three times  as  held  by  the  High                Court; 569           (2)  that Bagayat kas forms part of the assessment                fixed    for  the land  within the meaning of                sub-section (2) of section 11 and in awarding                compensation under  the said provision of law                the amount  of Bagayat  kas  was  erroneously                excluded from the assessment;           (3)  that the  Revenue Tribunal  had  neither  any                power nor  was it  justified in  reducing the                rates of the value of the village site lands.      We shall deal with the six points aforesaid in order we have mentioned above.      Apart  from  the  other  Acts  which  were  before  the Legislature when  the Jagirs Abolition Act was passed in the year 1954  The Bombay  Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949- hereinafter called  the Taluqdari  Act passed  by the Bombay Legislature was  very much there before the same legislative body. Yet  we are  grieved to  find a confusion, meaningless and unpurposeful  departure in  the wordings  of the  Jagirs Abolition Act  from those  of  the  Taluqdari  Act.  If  the legislature  intended   to  make   any  departure  from  the provisions  of   the  earlier   act,  to  avoid  unnecessary controversy and  arguments in  courts, it ought to have done so in  clear and  unambiguous language.  Section 7(1) (b) of the Taluqdari  Act provided  for the  Collector to  make  an award in  the manner  prescribed in  section 11  of the Land Acquisition Act but subject to the conditions and exceptions provided  in   sub-clauses  (1),  (ii)  and  (iii).  In  the Explanation appended  to the  section the  market value  was meant to  mean the value as estimated in accordance with the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act in  so   far  as   such  provisions.   may  be   applicable. Interpreting the  said provision of law in the case of State of  Gujarat   etc.  v.  Vakhtsinghji  Sursinghji  Vaghela  & ors.(1). Bachawat,  J delivering the judgment on behalf of a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

Constitution Bench of this Court has said at page 701:           "Section 7(1)  gives compensation to taluqdars for      extinguishment of  rights in any property under section      6. The Collector is required by sec.7(1) (b) to make on      award in  the manner  prescribed in  section 11  of the      Land Acquisition  Act, 1894.  The Collector has to make      an award  of compensation  under  sec.  11  and  having      regard  to   sec.  15  in  determining  the  amount  of      compensation, he  is guided  by the provisions of secs.      23 and  24. Section  23(1) requires  an  award  of  the      market value  of the  land. Section  23(2) requires  an      additional award of a sum of fifteen per centum on such      market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature      of acquisition.  It follows that under sec. 7(1) (b) of      the Abolition  Act read  with section  11 of  the  Land      Acquisition Act,  the taluqdars are entitled to receive      as compensation  the market  value of all rights in any      property extinguished  under sec.  6 and  in addition a      sum of  15 per  centum on such market value. This right      is subject  to the conditions and exceptions enumerated      in sub-clauses (1), (ii) and (iii) of section 7(1)(b).      (1) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 692. 4-608SCI/76 570      In case  falling under  clause (1)  and in  some  cases      under  clause   (ii)  the  amount  of  compensation  is      limited. In  cases falling  under clause  (iii) and  in      some cases under clause (ii) the amount of compensation      is  the   "market  value"   which  according   to   the      explanation to  sec.7(1) means  the value  estimated in      accordance  with   sections  23  and  24  of  the  Land      Acquisition Act, 1894. The value so determined includes      the solatium of 15 per centum payable under sub-section      (2) of s. 23. Where the legislature intended to exclude      the application  of sub-section  (2) of sec. 23, it has      said so,  as in  section 14(2) under which compensation      is determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-      section (1)  of sections 23 and 24. It follows that the      taluqdar is  entitled to  the solatium of 15 per centum      on the  market value,  (1) under  the main part of sec.      7(1)(b) subject to the provisions of - the several sub-      clauses thereof:  (2) in  cases  falling  under  clause      (iii) of section 7(1) (b) and (3) in cases under clause      (ii) of section 7(1) (b) where market value is awarded.      The  direction   of  the   High   Court   is   modified      accordingly." Sub-section (2)  of section  7 of the Taluqdari Act reads as follows:           "Every award  made under  sub-section (1) shall be      in the  form prescribed  in  section  26  of  the  Land      Acquisition Act,  1894, and  the provisions of the said      Act, shall,  so far  as may  be, apply to the making of      such award." It is  to be  noticed that because of the clear provision in clause (b) and the Explanation, no significance was attached to what has been provided in sub-section (2).      Section 8 of the Jagir Abolition Act says:           "All public roads, etc., situate in jagir villages      to vest  in  Government-All  public  roads,  lanes  and      paths, the  bridges ditches,  dikes and  fences, on  or      beside the  same, the  bed of  the sea and of harbours,      creeks below  high- water mark, and of rivers, streams,      nalas, lakes, wells and tanks, and all canals and water      courses,  and  all  standing  and  flowing  water,  all      unbuilt village  site lands,  all waste  lands and  all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

    uncultivated lands  (excluding lands  used for building      or other  non-agricultural purposes)  which are situate      within the  limits of  any jagir village, shall, except      in so  far as  any rights of any  person other than the      jagirdar may  be established  in or  over the  same and      except as may otherwise be provided by any law  for the      time being in force, vest in and shall be deemed to be,      with all  rights in  or over  the same  or appertaining      thereto, the  property of  the State Government and all      rights held  by a  jagirdar in  such property  shall be      deemed to have been extinguished and it shall be lawful      for the  Collector, subject  to the  general or special      orders of  the State  Government, to dispose them of as      he deems  fit subject  always to  the rights of way and      other rights  of  the  public  of  individuals  legally      subsisting." 571 Since in  these appeals  we are  concerned with  proprietary Jagirs we shall read sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 11. They provide:           "(2) In  the  case  of  a  proprietary  jagir,  in      respect of land held by a permanent holder the jagirdar      shall be  entitled to  compensation equivalent to three      multiples of the assessment for such land.           (3) Any  jagirdar having  any right or interest in      any property  referred to  in section  8 shall,  if  he      proves to the satisfaction of the Collector that he had      any such right or interest, be entitled to compensation      in the following manner, t namely:-           (1) if  the  property  in  question  is  waste  or      uncultivated ’   but  is cultivable land, the amount of      compensation  shall   not  exceed   three   times   the      assessment of the land:           Provided that  if the  land has  not been assessed      the amount of compensation shall not exceed such amount      of assessment   as  would  be  leviable,  in  the  same      village on  the same  extent   of similar land used for      the same purpose;           (ii) If  the property  in question  is  land  over      which the  public has  been enjoying  or has acquired a      right of  way or  , any  individual has  any  right  of      easement, the  amount of  compensation shall not exceed      the amount  of the  annual assessment  leviable in  the      village for  uncultivated land  in accordance  with the      rules made  under the  Code or  if such  rules  do  not      provide for the levy of such assessment, such amount as      in the  opinion of  the Collector  shall be  the market      value of the right or interest held by the claimant:           (iii) If  there are any trees or structures on the      land, the  amount of  compensation shall  be the market      value of such trees or structures, as the case may be.           Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the      "market value"  shall mean  the value  as estimated  in      accordance   with the  provisions of sub-section (1) of      section 23  and section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act,      1894 (1  of 1894)  in so far as the said provisions may      be applicable."      As in section 7(1) (a) of the Taluqdari Act a provision was made  in sub-section  (1) of  section 13  of the  Jagirs Abolition Act  for the  making  of  an  application  to  the Collector for determining the amount of compensation payable to the Jagirdars under sections 11 or 12. Sub-section (2) of section 13 says:           "On receipt  of an  application under  sub-section      (1), the  Collector shall,  after making formal enquiry

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

    in the  manner provided  by  the  Code  make  an  award      determining the  amount of compensation. Where there is      a co-sharer  of a  jagirdar claiming  compensation, the      Collector shall by his award apportion the compensation      between the Jagirdar and the co-sharer." 572 There  is  a  clear  departure‘in  section  13(2)  from  the language of  section 7(1)(b)  of the  Taluqdari Act.  In the former it is merely provided that the Collector shall make a formal enquiry  in the  manner provided  in the  Bombay Land Revenue Code,  1879 and make an award determining the amount of compensation. Here there is no reference to section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 15 of the Jagirs Abolition Act reads  as follows  and is at par with sub section (2) of section 7 of the Taluqdari Act.           "Every award  made under section 13 or 14 shall be      in the  form prescribed  in  section  26  of  the  Land      Acquisition Act,  1894 (1  of 1894), and the provisions      of the  said Act  shall, so far as may be, apply to the      making of such award."      In section  11(3) of  the Act the language used is very unsatisfactory. Instead  of providing  that the person whose rights  had   been  extinguished   would  be   entitled   to compensation in respect of the properties in which he had an interest in  accordance with  the Land  Acquisition Act  but only subject to the exceptions provided in clauses (1), (ii) and (iii), what is provided in sub-section (3) of section 11 is that  the Jagirdar  will be  entitled to  compensation in respect of  any property  in  which  he  has  any  right  or interest, but  in the  manner provided  in  clauses  (1)  to (iii). Literally  the wordings  of  the  two  parts  of  sub section (3)  are contradictory  and carry not much sense. In sub-clauses (1),  (ii) and  (iii) are  more or less repeated sub-clauses (1) to (iii) of section 7(1)(b) of the Taluqdari Act. No  manner of awarding compensation is indicated in the sub-clauses of section 11(3) for awarding of compensation in respect of  any other property in which the Jagirdar had any right or  interest. Apart  from the  three kinds of property included in  sub-clauses (1)  to (iii)  there  are  numerous other properties mentioned in section 8 in some of which the Jagirdar t  may have  a right or interest thus entitling him to have  compensation under the first part of section 11(3). The unbuilt village site land is one such property. Hence as a matter of construction of sub-section (3) of section 11 of the  Act   we  hold  that  the  Jagirdars  are  entitled  to compensation for  all unbuilt  village site  lands in  which they could  prove to  have any right or interest. We may add that the  right of  the Jagirdars  to claim compensation for the village  site lands was not  challenged on behalf of the State before  the Courts  or authorities  below. Nor was Mr. Desai able  to press  this point  in this Court with such or much convincingness or vehemence as he did in respect of the points of solatium and interest.      Apropos the point of solatium, it may be pointed out at the outset  that the  sheet anchor  of the  Jagirdars in the High Court,  as here, has been the decision of this Court in Vakhtsinghji’s case (supra). The High Court awarded solatium of 15%  on the  amount of  compensation following  the  said decision. We are unable to uphold the view of the High Court in this regard.      ordinarily and  generally as  pointed  out  in  several earlier decisions  of this  Court  while  dealing  with  the interpretation of  Article,31(2) t,  of the  Constitution of India the concept of compensation means just 573

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

equivalent or  market value  of the property acquired. Under the various  clauses of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition  Act for  the purpose  of  determining  the amount of  compensation are  taken into  account some  other factors over  and above  the market  value of the land. Sub- section (2) says:           "In addition  to the  market-value of the land, as      above provided,  the Court  shall in every case award a      sum of  fifteen per  centum on  such  market-value,  in      consideration  of   the  compulsory   nature   of   the      acquisition." The Collector  because of section 15 of the Land Acquisition Act is  obliged to  be guided by the provisions contained in sections  23   and  24   while  determining  the  amount  of compensation and  thus to award solatium of 15% also. But it is to  be noticed that section 26(1) requires every award to specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub-section (1) of  section 23,  and also  the amounts  (if any) awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section. The amount of  solatium of  15% which  the Court  is obliged  to award under section (2) of section 23, strictly speaking, is not a  part of  the award of compensation as it is not to be mentioned in  the prescribed form of the award under section 26(1). Jaganmohan  Reddy, C.J.  delivering the judgment of a Full Bench  of the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in  R.  D. Suryanarayana Rao  v. The  Revenue Divisional  Officer, Land Acquisition officer,  Guntur(1) observed at page 57 column 2 .           "The compensation  as computed under Section 23(1)      is the  amount which  has to  be set  out in  the award      passed under  Section 26(1)  and it is that award which      is deemed  to be  a decree  under  sub-section  (2)  of      section 26.  It may be pertinent to notice that neither      solatium under  sub-section  (2)  of  section  23,  nor      interest under Section 34 forms part of the award." The learned  Chief Justice in another Full Bench decision in the case  of Kesireddi  Appala Swamy  and others  v. Special Tehsildar,   Land   Acquisition   officer,   Central   Rly., Vijayawada(2) said at paragraph 14 at page 145:           "In  our   view,  the   result  of  the  foregoing      discussion is  that 15  per cent of the market value to      be  added  under  Section  23(2)  to  the  compensation      awarded under  Section 23(1)  is not  part of the award      which has  to be passed by the Court within the meaning      of Section 26.      It is to be remembered that the awarding of solatium of 15 per  centum under  sub-section (2)  of section  23 of the Land  Acquisition   Act  is   a  special   compensation   in consideration of  the compulsory  nature of the acquisition. In absence  of an express provision such as was there in the Taluqdari Act  when Jagirs  were abolished and acquired as a measure of  agrarian reform  even  without  the  payment  of market  value   as  compensation   it  is   straining  one’s imagination to  hold that  the intention  of the legislature was to award 15% solatium in view      (1) A.I.R. 1969 A.P. 55.      (2) A.I.R. 1970 A.P. 139. 574 of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. It may be added here that  because of  Article 31A  of the  Constitution the vires of  the Act  was upheld  by this Court in Maharaj Umeg Singh and others v. The State of Bombay and others(1). As we have pointed  out above  there is no reference to section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act in section 13(2) of the Act. The intention of  the legislature that it did not intend to give any  solatium  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  unlike  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

Explanation appended to section 7(1) of the Taluqdari Act in the Explanation  to section  11 of  the Jagirs Abolition Act reference is  made to  sub-section (1) only of section 23 of the Land  Acquisition Act.  Similar is the provision in sub- section (2) of section 14. To crown all, in section 15 where the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have been applied to the  making of  an award, care has been taken to say that every award made under section 13 or 14 shall be in the form prescribed in  section 26.  ‘ In our opinion, therefore, the Legislature did  not intend  nor did  it provide to give any solatium on  the amount  of compensation  awardable  to  the erstwhile Jagirdar.      Coming to the question of interest we find the judgment of the  High Court  to be correct in substance but not clear or right in form. Section 22 of the Act says:           "The amount  of  compensation  payable  under  the      provisions of this Act shall be payable in transferable      bonds carrying  interest at  the rate of three per cent      per annum  from the date of the issue of such bonds and      shall be repayable during a period of twenty years from      the date  of the  issue of such bonds by equated annual      instalments of  principal and interest. The bonds shall      be of  such denomination  and shall be in such forms as      may as prescribed." The Bombay  Merged Territories  And Areas  (Jagirs Abolition Compensation Bonds)  Rules, 1956  were framed  by the  State Government under  section 25 of the Act. They will be called hereinafter the  Rules. Rule  4 provides:  "The date  of the coming into  force of  the Act shall be the date of issue of such bond."  In other words irrespective of the  actual date of the  issuance of the bond the bond will be deemed to have been issued  on 1st  August, 1954 on which date the Act came into force. Rule 5 of the Rules reads as under:           "Annual instalment  and repayment-Every  such bond      shall be  repayable in  equated annual  instalments  in      accordance with  the repayment  Schedule in  Form 8 and      Table 1 to VII in Form :           Provided that  if one  or  more  instalments  have      fallen due before the delivery of the bond and have not      been paid  already, such  instalments  or  any  balance      thereof shall be payable immediately after the delivery      of the bond." The ascertainment  of the  amount of compensation payable to the rest while Jagirdars was bound to take time. The proviso to Rule 5, there fore, made the instalments which had fallen due before the delivery      (1) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 164. 575 of the  bond payable immediately after its delivery. Roughly speaking  in the case in hand the bonds were delivered about 10 years  later. Question  for consideration  is whether the State was liable to pay interest for the period of 10 years, if so, what amount ?      The intention of the legislature in section 22 is clear that the  bonds were  to carry  interest @ 3% per annum from the date  of issue of such bonds and were repayable during a period of  20 years. Suppose the bond could be issued on the 1st of  August, 1954,  although it was not practicable to do so, the  Jagirdar according  to the  tables appended  to the Rules would  have got  the  amount  of  principal  with  the requisite amount of interest every year starting from 1st of August, 1955. But because of the delay which was unavoidable in the  delivery of  the bonds  the claimant  could get  the instalments-say 10  instalments only  at the end of the 10th year. Because of the legal fiction introduced by Rules 4 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

5 the  Jagirdar got  all the 10 instalments of principal and interest in  one lump sum but after a delay of 10 years. The question for  consideration  is  whether  the  Jagirdar  was entitled to  any interest on the sums of 10 instalments paid to him at one time after the lapse of 10 years.      The High  Court relying upon the decision of this Court in Satinder  Singh and  others v.  Amrao Singh and others(1) has allowed the claim of interest, but seems to have allowed it  on  the  entire  amount  of  instalments  including  the principal and  interest paid after the lapse of 10 years. In our opinion the awarding of interest on the delayed payments is justified  but not  on the  entire amount of instalments. Interest would  be payable  only on  the principal amount of instalments. Interest  will not  be payable on the amount of instalments of  interest. Messrs Tarkunde and Patel conceded that this  was the  correct position  in law. We do not feel persuaded to  accede to  the submission of Mr. Desai that on the delayed  payments of instalments no interest was payable at all  because under the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules the back instalments  became payable only on the delivery of the bonds. Ganjendragadkar,  J as  he  then  was,  has  said  in Satinder Singh’s case (supra) at page 693:           "What  then   is  the  contention  raised  by  the      claiments ?  They contend that their immovable property      has been  acquired by the State and the State has taken      possession of  it. Thus  they have been deprived of the      right to  receive the  in come  from the  property  and      there  is   a  time  lag  between  the  taking  of  the      possession by the State and the payment of compensation      by it  to the  claimants. During  this period they have      been deprived  of the  income of  the property and they      have not  been able to receive interest from the amount      of compensation.  Stated  broadly  the  act  of  taking      possession of  immovable property  generally implies an      agreement to  pay interest on the value of the property      and it  is on  this principle that a claim for interest      is made against the State."      Even without  pressing into  service section  34 of the Land Acquisition  Act on  the principles  enunciated by this Court in Satinder Singh’s      (1) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 676. 576 case  and   in  the  background  of  the  intention  of  the legislature to  award 3%  interest it  is legitimate to hold that interest  was payable  on the  arrears of the principal amount of  instalments. To  avoid any  confusion,  we  shall illustrate our  view point  with reference  to Table  No. II appended to  the Rules.  Suppose the first 10 instalments of interest  and   principal  fell  due  when  the  bonds  were delivered  to  the  erstwhile  Jagirdar,  then  all  the  10 instalments of interest and principal became payable, and we are told,  were paid  after the  delivery of  the bonds. The Jagirdar was  deprived of  his property  on the  coming into force of  the  Act  i.e.  the  1st  August,  1954.  He  was, therefore, entitled  to interest  on the  amount of  delayed payment of compensation. But the delay will have to be taken into account  only with reference to the total amount of the 10 instalments  of the  principal sums  the first  being Rs. 3.73 and  the last  being Rs. 4.87 as mentioned in Table II. The Jagirdar  is not entitled to any interest on the delayed payments of  the  amounts  of  interest.  One  more  precise statement  and   clarification  in   this  regard   is  also necessary. The  Jagirdar will  not get interest at 3% on the total 10 instalments of principal for 10 years. On the first amount of  Rs. 3.73  he will get interest 3% for 9 years. On

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

the second  instalment of  Rs. 3.84  he will get interest at the said  rate for  8 years  and so  on and so forth. On the last amount  of Rs.  4.87 he  will get interest for one year only @ 3%.      This disposes  of the  three points  urged on behalf of the States. Now we proceed to discuss the other three points urged on  behalf of  the Jagirdars-either the respondents or the interveners.      Although it is true that the Legislature has in the Act used  two   kinds  of   expressions-somewhere  3  times  and somewhere 3 multiples, it seems to have been so done without any significance  or variation  in the  provision.  In  sub- section (1)  of section  11 the  expression 3 times has been used because  it is  followed by the expression "the average of the  land revenue". Similar is the position in section 12 But because  in sub-section (2) of section 11 the expression is "the  assessment fixed"  for  indicating  the  amount  of compensation  the   expression  used  is  "equivalent  to  3 multiples". The  expression seems  to have  been used  in  a sense  of   common  parlance   and  not   in  a   technical, mathematical or  scientifical sense.  In the context we have no doubt in our mind that the expression "3 multiples" means 3 times  and not  6 times.  The High  Court in  the judgment under appeal  has followed  the decision  of Dewan,  J as he then was,  in Special  Civil Application  No.  469  of  1971 decided on  12-2-1964. In  our  opinion  the  learned  Judge rightly held  that there  was no  difference between 3 times and 3 multiples.      The problem  of Bagayat  kasar or Bagayat kas presented some difficulty.  Mehta, J  in the judgment under appeal has agreed with  and followed the decision of Dewan, J dated 12- 2-1964 in Special Civil Application Nos. 629 and 630 of 1961 and held that the amount of Bagayat kas was rightly excluded while fixing  the amount of compensation under section 11(2) of the  Act. Messrs  Tarkunde and  Patel took great pains to persuade us to take a contrary view. The 577 argument advanced  by them  on the first look appeared to be attractive and  forceful but  did not stand closer scrutiny. Dewan, J  has pointed  out in his judgment referred to above on a consideration of the various old records and reports as also the  Bhagwadgomandal dictionary  that ’kas’  or ’kasar’ means  a  tax.  Bagayat  lands  are  those  which  have  got irrigational facilities  by water  from well,  kundi etc. On such land apart from the amount of assessment fixed was also levied  Bagayat   kas.  In  the  records  of  the  Jagirdars invariably the  amount of  Bagayat kas  was shown separately than the  amount of  assessment on land. The Jagir Abolition officer, the  Revenue Tribunal  and the  Gujarat High  Court from time  to time  have held  that  while  determining  the amount of  compensation under  section 11(2)  the amount  of Bagayat kas  is not  to be  taken into  account. We  see  no sufficient reason to enable us to take a view different from the one taken by the local authorities and the High Court of the State.  It was  argued with  some force on behalf of the Jagirdars that Bagayat kas was a part of the land assessment although separately  shown. There  was nothing  to show that the wells  had  to  be  constructed  or  maintained  by  the Jagirdars to  enable them to realize Bagayat kas. That being so, in  substance and  in effect, it was argued, that it was an extra assessment fixed on the land which had the facility of irrigation  by water from wells or the like. We could not accept the  argument of  the Jagirdars to be wholly correct. If it  was merely  a difference  of assessment fixed for the different types  of lands  then there  was no  necessity  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

showing the  realization of  the Bagayat  kas as  a separate item. In  that event  only the  amount of  assessment of the land would  have  varied.  It  appears  depending  upon  the situation of  the well  and its  distance from  a particular land Bagayat  kas was  imposed as  a distinct  and  separate levy. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the arguments of the Jagirdars that it was a part of the assessment fixed for the land  within the meaning of section 11(2) of the Act. It was  also  submitted  by  the  Jagirdars  that  no  separate compensation has been provided for the Bagayat kas which the Jagirdars were  realizing and which they could not do on the abolition of  the Jagirs.  It is so. But then it was for the legislature to  provide any separate compensation for such a realization by  the Jagirdar. Courts cannot help them if the legislature did  not provide  for any  compensation for  the Jagirdars for  losing their  right of Bagayat kas. It is not possible to  do so  by treating the Bagayat kas as a part of the assessment fixed for the land.      We do  not feel  inclined to  examine in any detail the correctness of  the third  submission made  on behalf of the Jagirdars. The  Jagirdars filed  appeal before  the  Revenue Tribunal. In  that appeal areas of the village site lands in respect of  which compensation  was payable to the Jagirdars were increased  as some areas in the opinion of the Tribunal had been  wrongly excluded  by the  Jagir Abolition officer. But in  that situation  the State as a respondent before the Tribunal pointed  out that  the rates  of compensation fixed for the village site land in some cases were high. The State succeeded in  persuading the Tribunal to reduce the rates in some cases.  But the  net result  was the  awarding of  more compensation to the Jagirdars for the village site lands. In their appeal  the Tribunal  did  not  reduce  the  amount-of compensation. 578 on the  other hand,  it enhanced  it. The High Court did not feel persuaded  to interfere with this aspect of the matter. Under section  16 read  with section  17 of the Act it seems that the  State had  no right  of appeal  before the Revenue Tribunal. In  such a  situation in  view of  the decision of this Court in The Management of Itakhoolie Tea Estate v. Its Workmen(1) there  may  be  substance  in  the  argument  put forward on  behalf of the Jagirdars that the State could not challenge the  rates of  compensation  fixed  by  the  Jagir Abolition officer  on the  principles engrafted  in order 41 Rule 22  of the  Code of  Civil Procedure.  But  taking  the totality of  the circumstances  we think  this is  not a fit item in  respect of  which we  should interfere in an appeal filed by  special leave  of this  Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.  Justice on this point is not in favour of the Jagirdars  as on  facts  the  decision  of  the  Revenue Tribunal was not found to be erroneous.      In the  result CAs  1804 and  1805/1970 are  allowed in part in  the manner  and to  the extent indicated above. The directions given  by the  High Court  in its remand order to the Tribunal  stand modified  accordingly. Civil  Appeal No. 1968/1970 is  dismissed. In  the circumstances,  we make  no order as to costs. V.P.S.                               Appeals partly allowed.      (1) A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1349 579