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