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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/09/1996

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

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Admittedly, the  petitioner is  in possession  of  land admeasuring about  848.67 sq.mtrs.  being plot  No. 53-A  of scheme No.52,  Worli Estate  in Greater  Bombay as a tenant. The landlady,  Mrs. Jerbanoo  Khurshad Jehangir Cursetji and her husband  Dr. K.J.  Khurshad filed a writ petition in the High Court  for a direction whether petitioner would acquire the land  or surrender possession to them so that they would develop the  land on  their own accord. In the Writ Petition No.1733/94, the  High Court  had  directed  by  order  dated August 16,  1994 to  take a  decision whether the petitioner would proceed with the acquisition. In that event, direction was   given to  the Collector  to take  necessary action for acquiring the  land within  four months from the date of the said order.  Accordingly, notification  came to be published under the  Land Acquisition  Act, 1894  on February 23, 1995 and  award  enquiry  was  conducted.  The  Land  Acquisition Officer in  his award  dated May  30,  1995  determined  the compensation at the rate of Rs.8300/-per sq.ft. for the land in  question  and  determined  the  total  compensation  for Rs.7,57,92,954/- along  with other  compensation  for  other lands with  which we are not concerned. Since the amount was not paid,  the respondents  have taken  motion in  the above writ petition  being motion in the above writ petition being motion  No.156/96.  The  Division  Bench  has  directed  the petitioners to deposit the amount by June 30, 1996, which we are informed, was extended to October 1, 1996.      Shri N.N.  Goswami,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the petitioner, sought  to contend  that  the  Land  Acquisition Officer  has   determined  compensation   arbitrarily   and, therefore, it is not a reasonable rate of compensation which the lands  are capable to fetch. Alternatively, he contended that  since   the  petitioners   have  been   continuing  in occupation as  tenants, they  are also  entitled to pro rata compensation for  the tenancy rights held by the petitioners and that  the Land  Acquisition Officer,  therefore, has not properly considered  the same.  As far as the first point is

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

concerned, we  find absolutely  no merit.  The award  of the Collector is  an offer  made on  behalf of  the  State  and, therefore,  under   law,  the   State  cannot  question  the correctness of  the award determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The  State  is  bound  by  the  same.  Under  these circumstances,  they   cannot  impeach   the  award  of  the Collector as  being excessive of the prevailing market value as on  the  date  of  the  notification.  There  is  no  law applicable to the petitioners that they are entitled to seek any reference  under Section  18  as  regards  the  rate  of compensation determined under Section 23(1) of the Act. Only in the  State to  seek reference  under Section  18 (3)  was conferred upon  the Commissioner.  No such  similar  law  is existing under Act 1 of 1894.      He states  that the  Government have filed another writ petition which  was dismissed  on August  30, 1996  in which they claimed  the  right  to  compensation  awarded  by  the Collector towards  their tenancy  rights. If  that be so, it would be  open to  them to agitate the remedy in that behalf in an  appeal filed  against that order in the writ petition or in  any appropriate proceedings arising thereunder. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.