UNION OF INDIA VERSUS RAMCHANDRA & ORS

UNION OF INDIA VERSUS RAMCHANDRA & ORS

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5006-5010 OF 2022
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 36299-36303 OF 2017)
UNION OF INDIA .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAMCHANDRA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5031 OF 2022
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 13137 OF 2018)
J U D G M E N T
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. These appeals arising out of judgment dated 29.6.2017 are being
taken up for decision together. Civil Appeal Nos. 5006-5010 of 2022 are
filed by the Union of India to reduce the amount of compensation from
Rs.19 per square feet and also challenging the grant of compensation
for the entire land owned by the Company - Sagar Maize Products Ltd.1
,
who is owner of 2.038 hectares in Village Maksi. Civil Appeal No. 5031
1 For short, the ‘Company’
1
of 2022 is preferred by the Company claiming enhancement of
compensation of the acquired land to Rs.40/- per square feet.
2. The Company purchased an area of 0.361 hectares of Survey
Nos.1927/2, 1928/2 and an area of 1.317 hectares of Survey No. 1929
on Ujjain Road in Village Maksi in the year 1986-87. After purchase of
the land, the Company got permission to convert the agricultural land
to use for industrial purposes and has also started civil work for
installation of the factory for which certain pillars were raised.
3. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18942
 was
published on 9.3.1990 for the purpose of acquisition of 6.500 hectares
of land situated in Village Maksi and 0.700 hectares of land situated in
Village Jhokar, total 7.200 hectares of land for Dewas - Maksi Railway
Line. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on
8.6.1990.
4. The land measuring 0.244 hectares of land owned by the Company
was actually acquired for the railway line comprising in Survey No.
1929. The Company has laid the claim before the Land Acquisition
Collector as under:
Value of Proposed Land
measuring 203800 sq. ft.
Rs.1,01,90,000/-
For Plantation Rs.20,00,000/-
Cost for setting up industry Rs.2,82,634/-
Industry Management Rs.7,20,000/-
Total Rs.1,37,50,634/-
2 For short, the ‘Act’
2
5. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 2.6.1992 awarding
a compensation of Rs.30,000/- per hectare i.e., @ Rs.5/- per square
feet as the market value of the land acquired. In addition thereto, the
land owner was awarded a compensation of Rs.72,320/- on account of
expenditure incurred on construction of 40 pillars, 19 situated within a
periphery of 30 meters from the proposed railway line and other 21
lying outside the 30 meters periphery, apart from the statutory
benefits.
6. Aggrieved by the determination of the market value of the land
acquired, the land owners including the Company sought reference
under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court awarded a
compensation of Rs.40/- per square feet for the land acquired and also
for the entire land of the Company admeasuring 2.038 hectares on the
ground that the unacquired land cannot be utilized for the purpose
intended to be used by the Company.
7. Such compensation was arrived at by the Reference Court on the basis
of statement of PW 11 Pawan Damade, Manager working with Madhya
Pradesh Housing Development Board. He deposed that an
advertisement (Ex.P/23) for the sale of residential plots @Rs.45/- per
square feet was issued by the Board in the year 1984. He also stated
that the value of commercial plots was Rs. 50/- per square feet. The
Reference Court held that the sale price of the residential plot was @
Rs.45/- per square feet in the year 1984, but the sale price of the
3
residential plot included some other charges, therefore, the Reference
Court determined Rs.40/- per square feet as the market value.
8. In respect of 26,325 square feet land for laying of the railway line, the
Reference Court awarded compensation of Rs.10,53,000/-. For the
remaining land of 1,93,077 square feet, the Reference Court held that
it is not possible to establish the industry as the railway line passes
through Survey Nos. 1928 and 1929. It was held that the distance of 30
meters is required from the railway line for development work, hence
as no construction work could be carried out, therefore, the entire land
cannot be utilized for any purpose. Thus, compensation @ Rs.40/- per
square feet was awarded for the entire land purchased by the
Company, apart from the statutory benefits awarded to the Company
and to the other land owners.
9. The Company as well as the Union assailed the order of Reference
Court by way of separate appeals before the High Court. The High
Court affirmed the finding of the Reference Court that the entire land
cannot be utilized by the Company, but reduced the amount of
compensation to Rs.19/- per square feet. The High Court also referred
to the statement of Pawan Damade (PW-11). Further, reliance was
placed upon the statement of Rajesh Rathi (PW-1) representing the
Company who deposed that he has spent Rs.14,29,800/- for setting up
the industry over an area in question. The land owners also produced
Awdhesh Sharma (PW-2), Naib Tehsildar who deposed that market
4
value of the land acquired was Rs.25-30/- per square feet. R.C. Dhakad
(PW-3), District Registrar, Shajapur deposed that Ex.15 is sale deed
dated 7.11.1991 and the market value was Rs.250/- per square meter.
Similarly, some of the land owners have appeared who have deposed
that the market value of the land was Rs.15-20 per square feet. The
High Court assessed the market value of the land in question as Rs.25/-
per square feet, but in view of large track of agricultural land acquired,
deduction of 25% was applied and the market value was assessed as
Rs.19/- per square feet.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find the entire
process of determination of the market value is based upon surmises
and conjectures.
11. As per the map produced by the Company, on the left side of the
railway line (East), the land measures 42940 + 10497 = 53437 square
feet, whereas the remaining land measures 58892 + 80271 = 139163
square feet on the right side of the railway line (west). This is a
compact piece of land abutting the road from Maksi to Ujjain. The first
question which is required to be determined is as to what extent, land
on both sides of the railway line would be part of acquisition. As per
the Company, the land of 30 meters on both sides of railway line is the
land required by the railways as a part of the acquisition after leaving
15 feet area on both sides of railway track. Such argument is based
upon a communication dated 19.12.1991 from the Urban & Rural
5
Investment Department, Madhya Pradesh that it is necessary to leave
a minimum distance of 30 meters as regard to any other development
works from demarcation of railway line. Learned counsel for the
Company relies upon Para 3718 of the Indian Railways Way and Works
Manual wherein the fencing is to be provided on 30 meters of actual
busy station yards on either side. As per the Company, the
demarcation of railway line is after 15 meters of the railway line,
meaning thereby 45 meters from the railway track.
12. The stand of the Union is that 30 meters from the railway track is
restricted area where construction will be permissible but with the
consent of the railway and in the manner prescribed in the Circular
dated 8.9.1988 and 25.6.2015. The reliance is placed upon Indian
Railways Way and Works Manual, Para 827, which reads as under:
“827. Construction of Government and private buildings near
Railway land
a) 1. While it may be realised that Railways have a prior right of
acquisition and utilisation of land adjacent to Railway
boundaries, the Railway Administration can only insist on
previous intimation being given by the revenue authorities or the
local Govt. when such lands are assigned for specific purposes.
For the prevention of encroachments on railway land such as by
the erection of buildings and platforms and the gradual accrual
of easements such as right of way and a right to discharge
sullage or storm water over Railway land, it is desirable that
sufficient open space be provided between the railway boundary
and the nearest face of any structure erected on adjoining land.
2.The interest of the Railways will be suitably safeguarded by
providing for:
i) an open space of approximately 30m being left between the
6
railway boundary and the nearest edge of a building constructed
on adjacent land, the exact space to be left being governed by
local conditions; and
ii) intimation regarding proposed construction on lands adjacent
to the railway boundary being given to the railway authorities at
least 90 days before the commencement of erection work.”
13. The relevant extract from the Circular dated 8.9.1988 is reproduced as
under:
“Railway Board under their letter No. 5456-W dated 24.4.96
addressed to all Provincial Government Local Administrations
had stipulated that an open space of 100 ft. (30m)
approximately on both side of the Railway land should be left
and the exact space should be governed by local conditions.
This has been accepted by all the State Governments.
2. In the cities and towns where the land is valuable and the
cost is high it may not be possible for the owners to leave a large
space (30m) between the Railway boundary and the nearest
edge of the building. At the same time it is necessary that the
Railway’s interests are adequately safe-guarded.
3. There has been a case in the past when a building which was
class to the Railway boundary collapsed and caused obstruction
to Railway traffic. Therefore in order to safe guard Railway’s
interest and also in view of the Tambe Committee’s report
(Committee appointed by Govt. of Maharashtra) following
guidelines are issued for consideration of issue of ‘No objection
certificate’ to the owners for construction of their
buildings/structure in the vicinity of Railway land within 30m
(100 ft.) from the existing boundary:-
xx xx xx
(iii) The height of the building should be restricted so that a clear
space equal to half the height of the building is available
between the nearest edge of the building and the Railway
boundary.”
14. A perusal of the Indian Railways Way and Works Manual (para 827) and
7
also the Circular dated 8.9.1988 shows that 30 meters of land on both
sides of railway line can be said to be restricted area but it does not
mean that the land cannot be utilized for any purpose. The
communication dated 19.12.1991 on behalf of the Urban and Rural
Department of the State is to the effect that distance of 30 meters of
land is to be kept. Firstly, the distance norms are of the Railways and
not of the State. Still further, the distance of 30 meters from the
railway track can be left unoccupied but not 15 + 30 meters. However,
since the land was purchased by the Company for the purpose of
setting up of an industrial unit, therefore land to the extent of 30
meters on both sides cannot be put to effective use by the Company.
Therefore, we deem it appropriate to grant compensation to the
Company for the land on both sides of railway track to the extent of 30
meters from middle of the railway track.
15. As per the plan produced by the Company, land measuring 26400
square feet that is 49.3 square meters on both sides of railway track
has actually been utilized for the purpose of railway track. Thus,
additional 15 meters on both sides of the railway track would be
subject to award of compensation @ Rs. 19 per square feet. Thus, land
up to extent of 30 meters from the center of railway track is the land
acquired for the railway track.
16. In respect of amount of compensation, the statement of Pawan
Damade (PW-11) is in respect of residential plots sold in the year 1984.
8
The sale price of residential plots @ 45/- per square feet is after
carrying the development activity such as laying of roads, electricity,
and provision of sewerage disposal, therefore, Rs.45/- could not be in
any case the market value of the agricultural land. However, the
Reference Court, without any basis, arrived at Rs.50/- per square feet,
as the land for commercial purpose would be more expensive. The said
process of reasoning led the Reference Court to determine the market
value at Rs. 40/- per square feet. The judgment of this Court reported
as Lal Chand v. Union of India & Anr.
3
 held that the brochure issued
by the Development Authority of fully developed plots cannot form
basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands.
This Court held as under:
“12. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such
allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like
DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for
acquisition of undeveloped lands for several reasons. Firstly,
market value has to be determined with reference to large tracts
of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the
allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to
small plots in a developed layout falling within urban
area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt
different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the
economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain
the real market value, whereas market value determination for
acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic
status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market
value of freehold land, whereas the allotment “rates” in the DDA
brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of
plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three
factors.
13. The percentage of “deduction for development” to be made
3 (2009) 15 SCC 769
9
to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped
agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference
to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20%
to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage
depending upon the nature of development of the layout in
which the exemplar plots are situated.”
17. Thus, the entire process of determination of the market value by the
Reference Court is contrary to the established principles of
determination of the market value of the acquired land as the sale of
developed land for the purpose of residential plots cannot be made
basis for acquisition of undeveloped agricultural land. Still further, the
acquired land can be said to be 41,771.32 square feet but the
compensation has been awarded for the entire land of the Company as
against the small area which was acquired for the railway line, though
the balance land is owned and is in possession of the Company.
18. The market value of Rs.25/- per square feet by the High Court has been
arrived at on the basis of statements of some of the witnesses. No sale
instance of the acquired land has been produced, not even the sale
deed by which the Company has purchased the land almost 3 years
prior to the acquisition. Such sale instance would have been the best
yardstick to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. The High
Court awarded Rs.19/- per square feet as the compensation of the
entire land acquired. Though we are unable to agree with the
reasoning, but in the absence of any other alternative to determine
market value, we do not wish to interfere with the market value
10
assessed by the High Court.
19. One cannot understand that how such large chunk of land can be said
to be unsuitable for any industry or any evidence suggesting that
industry could not be set up in such large piece of land abutting road.
The Company has not produced any drawings to say that their factory
cannot be put up in the remaining compact land measuring more than
130000 square feet. Therefore, compensation for the entire land
owned by the Company is wholly unwarranted, illegal and unduly
advantageous to the Company.
20. Even in respect of land on the eastern side of the railway line, it is not
that such land cannot be utilized for any purpose. There is land of the
other land owners on the other side, therefore, the same can be used
for different purposes, may not be for industry. Therefore, the
compensation of Rs.19/- per square feet awarded for such land is not
sustainable on any principle of law. The compensation of land on the
western side of the railway track is to be awarded only as the
agricultural land.
21. Now we shall deal with the amount of compensation for the land
situated on the eastern side of the railway track on account of
severance of the same from the rest of the land. Section 23 of the Act
specifies the factors to determine the amount of compensation to be
awarded for the land acquired. Clause thirdly is for determining
damages sustained by the person interested at the time of the
11
Collector’s taking possession of the land by reason of severing such
land from other land. Such provision has to be read along with Section
49 of the Act. The relevant provisions read thus:
“23. Matters to be considered in determining
compensation.—(1) In determining the amount of
compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act,
the Court shall take into consideration—
first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1);
secondly,
the damage sustained by the person interested, by
reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees
which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's
taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession
of the land, by reason of severing such land from his
other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession
of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in
any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the
Collector, the person interested is compelled to change
his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the
publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the
time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided,
the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the
rate of twelve per centum per annum of such market-value for
the period commencing on and from the date of the publication
of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of
such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of
12
taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation.—In computing the period referred to in this subsection, any period or periods during which the proceedings for
the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay
or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.
(2) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above
provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per
centum on such market-value, in consideration of the
compulsory nature of the acquisition.
xx xx xx
49. Acquisition of part of house or building.—(1) The
provisions of this Act shall not be put in force for the purpose of
acquiring a part only of any house, manufactory or other
building, if the owner desires that the whole of such house,
manufactory or building shall be so acquired:
Provided that the owner may, at any time before the
Collector has made his award under Section 11, by notice in
writing, withdraw or modify his expressed desire that the whole
of such house, manufactory or building shall be so acquired:
Provided also that, if any question shall arise as to
whether any land proposed to be taken under this Act does or
does not form part of a house, manufactory or building within
the meaning of this section, the Collector shall refer the
determination of such question to the Court and shall not take
possession of such land until after the question has been
determined.
In deciding on such a reference the Court shall have
regard to the question whether the land proposed to be taken is
reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the house,
manufactory or building.
(2) If, in the case of any claim under Section 23, sub-section (1),
thirdly, by a person interested, on account of the serving of the
land to be acquired from his other land, the appropriate
Government is of opinion that the claim is unreasonable or
excessive, it may, at any time before the Collector has made his
award, order the acquisition of the whole of the land of which the
land first sought to be acquired forms a part.
13
(3) In the case last hereinbefore provided for, no fresh
declaration or other proceedings under Sections 6 to 10, both
inclusive, shall be necessary; but the Collector shall without
delay furnish a copy of the order of the appropriate Government
to the person interested, and shall thereafter proceed to make
his award under Section 11.”
22. Such provision has been examined recently by this Court in a judgment
reported as Walchandnagar Industries Limited v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr.
4
 wherein, this Court held as under:
“35. It may be noted that clause thirdly of Section 23(1) relates
only to land, as it speaks only about the severance of the
acquired land from the unacquired land and the damage
sustained as a consequence. In contrast, clause fourthly of
Section 23(1) deals with the damage sustained by the person
interested, due to the injurious affection, (i) of his other movable
property; (ii) of his other immovable property; and (iii) of his
earnings. In other words what is injuriously affected at the time
of Collector's taking possession of the land, may either be the
unacquired portion of the immovable property or other movable
property or even the earnings of the person interested.
xx xx xx
37. Coming to Section 49, it deals with two contingencies. They
are,
(i) cases where what is sought to be acquired is only a part of
any house, manufactory or other building; and
(ii) cases where a claim for compensation under the head
“severance” under clause thirdly of Section 23(1) arises.
37.1. Insofar as the first contingency is concerned there is a bar
under sub-section (1) of Section 49 for the acquisition of a part
only of any house, manufactory or other building, if the owner
desires that the whole of such house, manufactory or building
shall be so acquired.
4 (2022) 5 SCC 71
14
37.2. Insofar as the second contingency is concerned, there is a
choice given to the appropriate Government to order the
acquisition of the whole of the land, if the appropriate
Government is of the opinion that the claim for severance
compensation is unreasonable or excessive.
38. The distinction between the scope of sub-section (1) and the
scope of sub-section (2) of Section 49 was brought out by this
Court in Harsook Das Bal Kishan Das v. LAO [Harsook Das Bal
Kishan Das v. LAO, (1975) 2 SCC 256] as follows : (SCC pp. 259-
60, para 12)
“12. The object of Section 49(1) of the Act is to give to
the owner the option whether he would like part to be
acquired. The Government cannot take the other part
under Section 49(1) of the Act unless the owner says so.
Section 49(2) of the Act has nothing to do with Section
49(1) of the Act. Section 49(2) of the Act gives the option
to the Government only where the claim under the third
clause of Section 23(1) of the Act is excessive. Reference
to the third clause of Section 23(1) of the Act makes it
clear that the claim under the third clause of Section
23(1) is for severance. The Government in such a case of
acquisition of the remaining portion of the land under
Section 49(2) of the Act saves the public exchequer
money which otherwise will be the subject-matter of a
claim for severance.”
xx xx xx
40. Section 49(2) also may not have any application for the
reason that the appropriate Government did not think fit to seek
acquisition of the whole of the land on which the remaining
portion of the trolley line existed, on the ground that the claim
for severance compensation was unreasonable or excessive.
Therefore, it is enough for us to go back to
clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 23(1) without the
constraints of sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 49.
41. As we have indicated earlier, clause thirdly relates to the
damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of
severance of the acquired land from the unacquired land, at the
time of Collector's taking possession of the land. In contrast,
15
clause fourthly of Section 23(1) deals with the damage sustained
by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting, (i) the other
movable property; (ii) the other immovable property; and/or (iii)
the earnings of the person interested.”
23. A reading of the abovesaid judgment shows that there was an option
with the appropriate Government to acquire the entire land without
publication of any fresh notification if the appropriate Government was
of the opinion that the claim of compensation on account of severing of
the land is unreasonable or excessive. The Union has not exercised
such option. Therefore, the compensation has to be determined
keeping in view of the fact that the land is continued to be owned by
the Company but its effective use stands diminished to large extent.
24. As discussed above, we have found that the land situated on the
western side is 139163 square feet (1.29 Hectare), which is not a small
area from any angle, therefore, the appropriate Government was
justified in not acquiring the said land and for the reason that the claim
of compensation of such land is unreasonable or excessive. In fact, the
Company had no claim in respect of the land situated on the western
plank of the railway line.
25. In respect of the land situated on the eastern side, the first impression
is that the land is severed but if the plan produced by the Company is
examined, there is land of other land owners as well. Therefore, it is
not the entire land which has become unapproachable or land locked.
Because of the railway line, may be the Company has to take a detour
16
to approach such land but not that the substantial portion of the land
cannot be used for any of the ancillary works of the Company. On
account of the fact that the Company can approach the land on the
eastern side by taking a detour, the Company will incur an additional
cost, therefore, the Company is entitled to such additional cost.
26. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tehal Singh & Ors. v. The
State of Punjab through the Collector, Land Acquisition,
Drainage Circle, Patiala & Ors.
5granted additional compensation on
account of severance of land in the case of water channels and that
statutory benefits are not payable on such compensation on account of
severance. It was held as under:
“11. Taking all the above factors into account. I consider the
following compensation to be appropriate for severance of land
to the concerned land-owners:—
(1) Where the S.Y.L. Canal intervenes between the land served
and the village abadi and it is two acres or less in area,
compensation for severance shall be 60% of the market value of
the land so acquired.
(2) Where the severed land is no the abadi side of the village
and S.Y.L. Canal is being constructed beyond it and it is two
acres or less in area, compensation for severance shall be 40%
of the market value of the land so acquired.
(3) Where the severed land is more than two acres in area but is
less than 5 acres, and is located on either side of the S.Y.L.
Canal, compensation at the rate of 10%- of the market value for
its severance shall be payable.
12. The land-owners shall, however, be not entitled to soletium
under Section 23(2) and the amount under Section 23(1-A) of
the Act on the amount of compensation on account of
severance, but they shall be entitled to interest as indicated in
5 1987 SCC OnLine P&H 269 : 1987 RRR 495
17
the following paragraph.”
27. We find that in respect to the land on the eastern side, after leaving
land up to the extent of 30 meters from the center of railway track, the
Company shall be entitled to Rs.9.5 per square feet, i.e., 50% of the
compensation acquired for the railway track.
28. Still further, in terms of the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab
v. Amarjit Singh & Anr.
6
, compensation on account of severance is
not entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the
Act, as the market value is determined in terms of Section 23(1) firstly,
whereas the compensation on account of severance of land is
determined under Section 23(1) thirdly. This Court held as under:
“11. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23, inserted by Act 68 of 1984
provides that in addition to the market value of the land, as
provided under Section 23(1), the court shall, in every case,
award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on
such market value for the period commencing on or from the
date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in
respect of such land to the date of award of the Collector or the
date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The
additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under
Section 23(2) are both payable only on the market value
determined under Section 23(1) of the Act and not on any other
amount. Solatium under Section 23(2) is not payable on the
additional amount nor is additional amount under Section 23(1-
A) payable on solatium. Solatium and additional amount are also
not payable on the damages/expenses that may be awarded
under the second to sixth factors under Section 23(1) of the
Act.”
29. The process of determining compensation by the Reference Court is
wholly fallacious. Thus, the appeal of the Company claiming
6 (2011) 4 SCC 734
18
enhancement of the compensation @ Rs.40/- per square feet is
untenable. Even the compensation determined by the High Court is
questionable but we do not find any reason to interfere in the present
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the
Company shall be entitled to Rs.9.5 per square feet in respect of land
situated on the eastern side after leaving 30 meters of the buffer zone
but without any benefits under Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of
the Act.
30. The reference court determined compensation on account of
construction in the shape of pillars raised now forming part of
unacquired land situated on the western side of railway track as Rs.
14,34,300/- is not in dispute. Thus, the said amount is maintained.
Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 5031 of 2022 filed by the Company is
dismissed whereas Civil Appeal Nos. 5006-5010 of 2022 filed by the
Union are allowed in the following manner:
(i) The land owners including the Company shall be entitled to
compensation of their land situated within 30 meters from the
middle of the railway track on both sides @ Rs.19 per square
feet. The Company shall be entitled to compensation on
account of pillars raised amounting to Rs. 14,34,300/- as well.
The land owners including the Company shall be entitled to
statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of
the Act on such land.
19
(ii) In respect of land after the extent of 30 meters on the western
side of the railway track and abutting the road from Maksi to
Ujjain, no compensation would be payable.
(iii) In respect of remaining land after the extent of 30 meters on
the eastern side of the railway track, the Company shall be
entitled to compensation on account of severance of land
@Rs.9.5 per square feet but such compensation shall be
without any benefits under Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2)
of the Act.
.............................................J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
.............................................J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 11, 2022.
20

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर