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

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJAKISHORE DAS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/02/1996

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

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1508            1996 SCC  (4) 221  JT 1996 (3)   560        1996 SCALE  (3)68

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Though the  respondent has  been served,  he  does  not appear either  in person  or through counsel. This appeal by special leave  arises from  the order dated 1.3.1990 made by the High Court of Orissa in First Appeal No.252/87.      The  notification   under  section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894  was  published  in  the  Gazette  on 25.3.1985 acquiring about 120 decimals of land for extension of  Vidyut  Marg  in  Bhubaneshwar  Municipality.  The  Land Acquisition Officer  passed his  award under  Section 11  on 7.10.1985 awarding  a total  compensation of  a sum  of Rs.1 lakhs. Dissatisfied  therewith, the  respondent  sought  for reference and  also demanded  Rs.2 lakhs  for  the  building constructed thereon.  The reference  Court by  judgment  and decree dated  19.8.1987 awarded compensation @ Rs.1,66,000/- per acre  and other  statutory benefits.  On further appeal, the High  Court enhanced  the compensation in respect of The building from  Rs.10,000/- to  Rs.1 lakh.  Feeling aggrieved with the  enhanced compensation  in respect of the building, this appeal by special leave has been filed.      The Division Bench has recorded the finding that though a  sale  was  purported  to  have  been  made  of  the  half constructed building  on  March  30,  1981  for  residential purpose, the  sanction for  the construction of the building from the Municipality was not obtained. The construction was unauthorized.  Nonetheless,  the  High  Court  directed  the payment of  compensation. We  find that  the approach of the High Court  is clearly  illegal. Having recorded the finding that the  respondent had  constructed the  building  without permission of  any authority  and since  the  Government  is entitled to  have the  unauthorized construction demolished, unless the  owner himself  voluntarily demolishes  and takes the value of the building structure as salvage material. the High Court  ought to  have  held  that  the  respondent  had

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

proceeded unauthorisedly in constructing the building having had  the   knowledge  of  the  acquisition.  Therefore,  the authorities   are    not   bound   by   such   construction. Consequently, the  State is not bound to pay compensation of the value of such a building constructed unauthorisedly. The judgment and  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  directing payment of compensation of Rs.90,000/- is clearly illegal.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the reference Court  for a  sum of Rs.10,000/- is upheld and the direction for  payment of  the  balance  amount  stands  set aside. No costs.