JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAHA VIR HOUSING CO-OP., SOCIETY, JAIPUR ETC.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : H 491

492 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1996)SUPP.6S.C.R.

A Leave granted.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was published on August 21, 1969 acquiring a large extent of 484 bighas 11 biswas of land for Jaipur Urban Development Scheme by dif- ferent notifications. An extent of 4 acres 5 biswas (9845 sq. yds.) relates to the acquisition in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14811/94.. ln respect of the appeal rising out of SLP (C) No. 6519/94, an extent of 10 bighas 7 biswas was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer. determined the com- pensation by his award dated July 16, 1981 and 9ctober 12, 1981 respec- tively determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per bigha to the respondent - Jai Ambe Co-op. Housin~ Society and Rs 7,500 per bigha to the respondent - Mahavir Housing Co-op. Society. On reference, the civil Judge enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs: 40,000 per bigha. As regards the award of the Civil Judge, an appeal was filed against the respondent - Jai Ambe Co-op. Society Ltd. The learne.d single Judge in appeal No. 142/92 has confirmed the same by judgment dated May 2, 1994. · As regards the award in favour of Mahavir Housing Co-operative Society, no appeal was filed. But in execution an objection has been raised· regard- ing additional amount award under Section 23(1-A) which was negatived. On revision, the High Court in Revision No. 1059/93 dated December 20, E 1993 confirmed the sanie. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

When the matter relating to M~avir Housing Co-operative Society initially came up, notice was confined in respect of Section 23(1-A), but later when it was brought to our notice of the fraud and collusi?n between the officers entrusted with the prosecution on behalf of the appellant.and F the claimants, we have indicated to the counsel that we would go into the ·question of determination of the compensation. Thus, these cases are heard together. It is seen that from the evidence adduced before the reference Court in respect of Jai Ambe Co-operative Housing Society except one claimant Mr. Garg, not documentary evidence has been adduced in sup- G port of the claimant for enhancement. Two awards under Section 26 came to be filed in which one award relating to the Mahavir Housing Co-opera- ,.. tive Society and another award relating to the same notification but an amount of Rs. 24,000 per bigha was awarded. As regards the claim in Mahavir Housing Co-operative Society is concerned, they relied upon a H judgment of the High Court in which the High Court has granted to some

JAIPURDEV.AUTIIORITYv.MAHAVlRHSG.CO-OP.SOCY. 493

lands at the rate of Rs. 12 per sq. yd. which relates to the acquisition of A 1964 and also a certificate issued by Tehsildar relating to some other village, which worked out at· the rate. of Rs. 44,000 per acre and the sale deeds in support thereof. One curious fact in both the cases that cannot be lost sight of is that the claimants have purchased these properties after the notification under Section 4(1) was published and a reference came to be made at their instance to the civil Court. Though an opportunity was ~ven to the appellant, for well over 11 years, no counter affidavit has been filed. As a result, they were set ex-parte. Yet another curious aspect that we cannot lose sight of is that the reference Judge has merely with parrot-like but traditional consideration swallowed what with witnesses has stated that the market value is Rs. 50 per sq. yd. without ~ubjecting to any scrutiny as per the tests laid do~ by this Court. It is also to be noted that the same aspect was repeated by the learned Judge of the High Court in Jai Ambe Co-operative Housing Society's case.

The question, therefore, is : what would be the reasonable compen- D · sation to which the claimants are capable to get? In view of the settled legal position that the claimants f>eing the subsequent purchasers cannot have a higher right than that the original owner himself had. They cannot set up any title to the property on the basis of sale deeds and consideration but may be entitled to the compensation obviously getting into the shoes of the E claimant. We need not go into the ques.tion of correctness whether or not . the reference is valid in this case, though open to doubt since t~at question was not raised at any stage much less in this Court. We proceed on the premise that the reference under Section 18 was valid.

As stated earlier, the entire process has gone on in collusion. When F we have issued notice to the appellants as to what steps they have taken against the officers who are responsible even for not filing the .appeals or not contesting the matter, an affidavit has been filed in which it was stated that disciplinary action against the Land Acquisition Officer was taken and even the counsel who appeared for the Jaipur Development Authority was G in collusion and steps were taken by laying a complaint before the Bar Council for professional misconduct. We need not further dwell up on that fact but suffice it to state that the acquisition proceedings have proceeded in collusion and, therefore, they did not reflect the correct market value as is available in this case. As seen in Jai Ambe Co-operative Housing Society's H

p. 494

A _ case, even their own sale deeds under which they have purchased from one Bhagwan Singh, who was said to be the original owner, were not even filed. Under these circumstances, we thought over the matter as to what would be the appropriate course to be adopted in this case. We are of the view that instead of relegating the matter again, we can ourselves decide the B matter on the basis of the evidence on record. Accordingly, we have considered the case on merits.

It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensa- . tion at the rate of Rs. 7,500 per bigha to the lands purchased by Mahavir Co-operative Housing Society and Rs. 5,000 per bigha to the lands pur- C chased by J ai Ambe Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that two times more than what was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer would be the Just compensation in the given circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we determine the compensation to Jai Ambe Co-operative Housing Society D Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per bigha and to the lands of Mahavir housing Co-operative Society Rs. 22,000 per bigha.

As regards the State of Rajasthan the Land Acquisition (Amend- ment) Act, 68 of 1984 was extended w.e.f. April 30, 1987. But the State E legislature had amended the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 by Amendment Act 29 of 1987 w.e.f. August 1, 1987. In Umed Industries & Land Development Co_. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 563, a Bench of two Judges had held that the Central Amendment Act 68 of 1984 would apply for August 1, 1987 to the acquisition in State of Rajasthan. It is seen that in Mahavir Housing Co-operative Society's case, possession was delivered on May 24, 1984 after the stay was vacated by the civil Court since that civil Court granted stay of dispo_ssession on October 23, 1983. Therefore, the respondent-Society is not entitled to the interest prior to May 25, 1984. Therefore, the decree as regards payment of interest from the date of the notification till May 24, 1984 is clearly illegal. It is seen that since that award of the reference Court is dated June 15, 1990, the claimants will be entitled to interest from May 25, 1984 at the rate of 6% per annum till August 1, 1987 and thereafter 15% per annum on the enhai:ced compensation till 'date of deposit in the Court. As regard the solatium is concerned, they are entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation. As regards the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is

JAIPUR DEV. AUIBORITY v. MAHAVIR HSG. CO-OP. SOCY. 495

concerned, the claimants are not entitled to the additional amount since the awards came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on October 12, 1981 and July 16, 1981 in Mahavir Housing Co-operative Society and Jai Ambe Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. respectively.

In Prem Nath Kilpur and Anr. v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India B Ltd. and Ors., [1996] 2 SCC 71, considered the entire case law by a bench of three Judges in paragraph 17 had held that the power to grant additional amount under section 23(1-A) and enhanced interest under the proviso to Section 28 and solatium at 30 per cent was due to amendments brought under Act 68 of 1984. Prior thereto the court has no power or jurisdiction to grant them. Therefore, the additional amount, the excess rate of interest c or solatium at 30 per cent granted were without jurisdiction and a nullity. The courts cannot correct the award of the decree in exercise of the power under Sections 151 and 152 C.P.C. This Court has relied upon the Con- stitution Bench decision in Union o[ india v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 3 SCR

316. This Court has reiterated the same principle in another recent judg- D ment in Bai Shakriben v. Spl. LA.O., (1996) 4 SCALE 636. Therefore, objection would be raised in execution under section 47. The award of the additional amount was one of without jurisdiction and so a nullity.

It is contended for the respondent in Maliavir Housing Co- operative E Society's case, that since the award was allowed to become final including grant of additional amount under Section 23(1-A), it is not open to the review at a later date since it is not one of initial lack of jurisdiction but an illegality has been committed in awarding the additional amount. In support thereof, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa & Anr., [1993) Supp. F 1sec49, paragraph 3. It is true that in a case where the proceedings were properly conducted and the order w'as allowed to become final, the mat,ter may be construed to be an order of illegalify. -when it is one of jurisdiction, .this Court has repeatedly, in plethora Qf precedents, had held that the courts have no jurisdiction to award additional amount under Section G 23(1-A) since the Collector had~ already passed the award ,under Section 11 and the benefit of additional amount would be confined to the period between the date of the notification under Section 4(1) and the award under Section 11 when the proceedings were pending-before him. In this case, since we have already recorded the finding that the award became H

p. 496

A final due to collusion by the officers and the claimants, the principle of illegality in the award does not apply since fraud unravels the· entire procedure and makes the award a nullity.

The appeals are accordingly allowed as indicated above, but in the circumstances, without costs. As regards strictures awarded by the refer- B· ence Court, they stands upheld.

G.N. Appeal allowed.