DA VAL SINGH & Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Judgment

A B c DA VAL SINGH AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. JANUARY 29, 2003 [Y.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANNAN, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, I 894/Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952-Section 28A/Sections 8(J)(a) and 8(3): Acquisition proceedings under 1952 Act-Applicability of Section 28A Held: Provisions of section 28A not applicable since the mode and manner of compensation payable for acquisition of land under 1952 Act and 1894 Act are different and distinct. D Agreement between parties under 1952 Act-With regard to compensation awarded for the property acquired-Passing of subsequent award of enhanced compensation for similar class of lands-Reopening of agreement Permissibility of-Held: Agreement cannot be reopened in view of subsequent award-Further there being no provision in 1952 Act/or re-determination of E conipensation such right cannot be invoked by reading the same into the statute-Interpretation of ~tatutes. F Appellant's lands were requisitioned and later on acquired for establishment of Military Cantonment by the respondents. Appellants were awarded compensation for which they entered into agreement under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Appellants were also granted interest and solatium. However,. several land owners did not accept the award and made a reference. Atj>itrator awarded higher compensation, solatium and interest. Appella~ts then filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for re-determination of compensation. Land Acquisition Collector G enhanced the compensation. Respondents then filed writ petition on the ground that the said award was illegal and without jurisdiction, relying on *Union of India v. Hori Krishan Khosla, (dead) by Lrs. case that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act were not applicable to acquisition made under the 1952 Act. Single Judge of High Court set aside the H 714 DAY AL SINGH v. \J.0.1. 715 award. Even the appeal was also dismissed. Hence the present appeals. A B Appellants inter alia contended that in *Union of India v. Huri Krishan Khosla, (dead) by lrs. case this Court did not take into consideration the question that if the provisions for grant of solatium and interest in terms of Section 23A(l) and 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act would apply in relation to acquisition under the 1952 Act, thus there is no reason as to why proceeding under Section 28A \Vould not be maintainable; that although Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act per se is not applicable to a proceeding under the 1952 Act, the said provisions should be read into therein; that in a case \\'here the parties entered into an agreement in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (I) of Section 8 of 1952 Act, there is C no reason as to why the parties cannot enter into another agreement having regard to the fact that the Arbitrator has awarded enhanced compensation for acquisition of similarly situated lands; that the criteria for determination of compensation being the same, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act should be held to be applicable being implicitly embodied therein; that the Collector himself having made an award, the D respondents could not have filed a writ petition; and that the respondents having filed a writ petition after a period of eight years the same could not have been entertained. Dismissing the appeals, the Court E HELD I.I The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 is a self-contained Code. It lays down a criteria for determination of compensation and also provides for the mode and manner thereof, Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the other hand, lays down the factors which are required to be taken into consideration F in determining the amount of compensation. The procedures for determining the award of compensation, the mode and manner in which the compensation is payable for acquisition of land under the 1952 Act and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are thus, distinct and different. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are, ex-facie not applicable for determination of compensation under the 1952 Act. The provisions of the G Land Acquisition Act and the 1952 Act are, thus, not in pari-materia. Therefore the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be made applicable in relation to a proceeding under the 1952 Act. (723-F-H; 724-A [

1.2. The criteria for determination of compensation in terms of sub- H 716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R. A section (3) of Section 8 of the 1952 Act is the price which the requisitioned property would fetch in the open market. In any event the market value of a property may also be determined from the stand-poirit of a willing purchaser of the land ready and willing to offer the consideration therefor to a bliyer. The owner of a' land normally would opt for the best offer. B Once he has agreed to a price, so far as he is concerned the same ordinarily should be presumed to be the best offer which he could get. (724-B-C) Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq v. The State of West Bengal, 'AIR (1959) SC 488, distinguished.