Holding

If the claimant omits to make a claim under Section 9, the court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount awarded by the Collector, as per Section 25(2) of the pre‑amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Summary

A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to acquire 4.5 acres of land in Punjab. The Collector initially awarded Rs.13,816 per acre as compensation. The Additional District Judge enhanced it to Rs.2,50,000 per acre, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court reduced the award to Rs.30,000 per acre. The appellants challenged the reduction, arguing that the market value shown in mutation proceedings justified a higher amount. The Supreme Court held that under the pre‑1984 version of the Act, if the claimant fails to make a claim as required by Section 9, Section 25(2) bars the court from awarding compensation exceeding the Collector’s award. Consequently, the High Court’s award of Rs.30,000 per acre stands and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a court has jurisdiction to award compensation exceeding the Collector’s award when the claimant has omitted to make a claim under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether reliance on mutation proceedings to determine market value is permissible in the absence of a claim by the claimant.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 25(1), s. 25(2), s. 4, s. 54, s. 9

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationSection 25Claim omissionJurisdictionMutation proceedingsSupreme Court

Judgment

A GURDIAL SINGH AND ANR.
v. -f
STATE OF PUNJAB

MARCH 1, 1995

B (K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Before amendment of 1984 Section 9 and
25(2)-Determination of compensation-Applicant omitted to make
-,
c
claim-No jurisdiction vests with court to award compensation in excess of
amount awarded by Collector. -r
A notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published
for acquiring land. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.
13,816 per acre as compensation. On reference, the Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 2,50,000 per acre. On appeal, the High Court reduced
D the compensation to Rs. 30,000 per acre. Hence these appeals.

The appellants contended that the sale deed and mutation proceed- -~
ings Rs. 1,08,000. It was submitted that the High Court was not justified
in relying upon the solitary mutation proceedings to determine the com-
pensation at Rs. 30,000 per acre.
E
Dismissing the appeals, this court

HELD : Under the unamended Act, by operation of Section 9 of the
Land Acquisition Act, the claimant or the oWller was enjoined to make claim
giving particulars of the claim. Section 25 of the Act, as originally stood,
F lri...
provided that in a case where a claim was made the amount awarded by the
court shall not exceed the amount claimed or less then the amount awarded
by the Collector u/s 11. But in a case where the applicant omitted to make ~
I
the claim, then the Court had no jurisdiction to award the compensation in
excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. In these cases, no claim had
G been admittedly made by the appellants. (421-F, H, 422-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4220-24
of 1982. ~

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.82 of the Punjab and
H Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 1065-66, 1068-69 and 1077 of 1981.
420
I
G. SINGH v. SfAIBOFPB. 421

Prem Malhotra for the Appellants. A
Sanjay Bansal and G.K. Bansal for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, B
was published on Feb. 15, 1979, acquiring 4.5 acres of land for establishing
,- a Milk Chilling-cum-Demonstration Centre at Village Sardulgarh in
Bhatinda District of Punjab State. The Land Acquisition Officer in his
\
- -( award dated March 23, 1979, awarded a sum of Rs. 13,816 per acre as
compensation. On reference, the Addi. Distt. Judge, Bhatinda, by decree .C
dated April 30, 1981, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,50,000 per acre.
On appeal under Section 54 by the State, the High Court in R.F A. NO.
1065 of 1981 and batch, by its order dated September 15, 1982, reduced
the compensation to Rs. 30,000 per acre. Dissatisfied with the judgment of
the High Court, the appellants filed these appeals by special leave.
D
Shri Prem Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
has strenuously contended that the sale-deed (Ex. Al to AS) and Mutation
Proceedings (ExA7 to A16) would show that the market value ranged
between Rs. 3,12,000 to Rs. 1,08,000. He submitted that the High Court
was not justified in relying upon the solitary mutation proceedings noted E
in the judgment to determine the compensation at Rs. 30,000 per acre. We
find no force in this contention. It is seen that under the unamended Act,
by operation of Section 9, the claimant or the owner is enjoined to make
claim giving particulars of the claim. Section 25 of the Act, as originally
stood, provided that in a case where a claim is made the amount awarded
by the court shall not exceed the amount claimed or less than the amount F
awarded by the Collector under Section 11. This is by operation of sub-
section (1) of Section 25. But in case where the claim was not made,
sub-section(2} operated and held the field. Sub-section {2) Section 25 read
thus:

"When the applicant has refused to make such claim, or has G
omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to
make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no
case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector."

Thus, it can be seen that in a case where the applicant had omitted to make H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1W5] 2 S.C.R.

A the claim, then the court had no jurisdiction to award the compensation in
excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. In these cases, no claim
had been admittedly made by the appellants:

This provision was not noted by the High Court. The High Court, by
referring to the mutation proceedings in which the market value was
B shown to be ranging between Rs. 9,400 to Rs. 14,000 per acre, had
enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,000 per acre. That appeal was
allowed to become final; and so nothing can be done with the market value
as fixed by the High Court. But these appeals are dismissed in view of the
statutory prohibition contained in sub-section (2) Section 25 of the Act:
C We make no order as to costs. y-
A.G. Appeals dismissed.