Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Punjab for acquiring certain lands belonging to the respondents. Notices under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 1.6.1982 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 17.8.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 25.3.1985, determining compensation only for the land, while stating that compensation for structures and trees would be announced separately because assessment reports from the respective departments had not been received. The respondents challenged the award before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, contending that the award was not in conformity with Section 11 of the Act because it did not determine compensation for superstructures and trees. The High Court accepted this contention and by order dated 11.10.1990 held that the award was not one envisaged under Section 11, which requires an award for the entire unit including land, buildings, superstructures, standing crops, and trees. Consequently, the High Court held that the acquisition proceedings lapsed insofar as the award related to that portion of the acquired land on which superstructures and trees were standing. The State of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred to an identical issue decided in Mohanji & Another v. State of U.P. & Others, JT 1995 (8) SC 599, where it was held that no piecemeal award by making a subsequent award after expiry of the two-year period under Section 11A is contemplated in law. An award determining compensation for the entire land within the period must be construed as the whole award under Section 11, even if no compensation was awarded for buildings. The claimant's remedy is to seek a reference under Section 18 treating the award as not awarding compensation for the building. Applying this ratio, the Supreme Court held that the impugned award dated 25.3.1985, made within the period specified in Section 11A, must be construed as an award under Section 11 for the acquisition of the lands in question. The Court set aside the High Court orders, allowed the appeals, and left open the respondents' right to claim compensation for buildings/trees in accordance with law treating the award as not awarding any compensation for those items. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Award under Section 11 - Requirements of Award - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 11 and 11A - The High Court held that the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector was not the one envisaged under Section 11 because it determined compensation only for land and left compensation for superstructures and trees to be decided separately. The Supreme Court, following Mohanji v. State of U.P., held that no piecemeal award by making a subsequent award after expiry of two years is contemplated in law; the award made within the period must be construed as the whole award under Section 11 for the entire land, and the omission of compensation for structures/trees does not invalidate it. Held that the award dated 25.3.1985 within the period specified in Section 11A is a valid award under Section 11. (Paras 1-6) B) Land Acquisition - Lapse under Section 11A - Non-compliance - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 11A - The High Court had held that acquisition proceedings lapsed in relation to that portion of the acquired land on which superstructures and trees were standing because the award did not include compensation for them. The Supreme Court held that since the award for the entire land was made within two years, there was no non-compliance with Section 11A; piecemeal award after expiry of two years is impermissible, and therefore the proceedings did not lapse. (Paras 1-6) C) Land Acquisition - Remedy for Omitted Compensation - Reference under Section 18 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18 - Where an award omitted compensation for buildings/trees, the claimant has the remedy to seek a reference under Section 18 treating the award as one not awarding any compensation for those items. The Supreme Court left open the respondents' right to claim compensation for buildings/trees in accordance with law treating the award already made as not awarding any compensation for the buildings/trees. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an award determining compensation only for land, leaving compensation for superstructures and trees undecided, is an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 11A when the award does not include compensation for superstructures/trees within the two-year period.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside; award dated 25.3.1985 construed as award under Section 11; respondents' right to claim compensation for buildings/trees in accordance with law left open; no costs.
Law Points
- Award under Section 11 must cover entire unit of land
- buildings
- superstructures
- standing crops and trees
- No piecemeal award after expiry of two years under Section 11A is contemplated
- Award determining compensation for land only but made within two years is a valid award under Section 11
- Claimant may seek reference under Section 18 for compensation for buildings/trees
- Non-inclusion of compensation for structures/trees does not lapse acquisition proceedings
