TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court grants compensation for acquired land, rejects estoppel, clarifies Arbitrator's award not final.</h1> <h3>Goparanjan Dube and Ors. Versus Arbitrator, Hirakud Land Organisation and Ors.</h3> The High Court allowed the writ application, granting the petitioners compensation at the prevailing market rate for acquired land, rejecting the estoppel ... - Issues:1. Calculation of compensation for acquired land.2. Claim of higher compensation rate for paddy.3. Application of estoppel against petitioners.4. Finality of the award by the Arbitrator.Analysis:Issue 1: Calculation of compensation for acquired landThe case involved the acquisition of land by the State of Orissa in 1951, and an award was passed by the Arbitrator in 1963 for compensation. The award directed the Land Acquisition Officer to assess the compensation based on the net yield of the land and additional compensation. The State appealed the award, which was affirmed by the High Court in 1970. The petitioners later sought a recalculation of compensation, which was initially rejected by the Arbitrator based on the finality of the award. However, the High Court held that the award was not final, as it laid down principles and directed the calculation of compensation, allowing for a review of the calculation if necessary.Issue 2: Claim of higher compensation rate for paddyThe petitioners claimed a higher rate of compensation for paddy based on previous decisions where compensation was granted at a specific rate. However, the Court noted that the prevailing market price at the time of acquisition should determine the compensation rate, not the ex-godown price. The Court established that the petitioners were entitled to compensation at the prevailing market price of &8377; 7.27 per maund, rejecting the claim for a higher rate.Issue 3: Application of estoppel against petitionersThe State argued that the petitioners were estopped from claiming higher compensation as they had accepted the initial compensation without protest. The Court found no basis for estoppel in this case, emphasizing that there was no limitation issue since the petitioners raised a protest within three months of the payment and pursued the matter diligently. The Court dismissed the State's estoppel argument and ruled in favor of the petitioners.Issue 4: Finality of the award by the ArbitratorThe Arbitrator had initially rejected the petition for recalculation citing the finality of the award. However, the High Court clarified that the award was not final in terms of the calculation of compensation and that the Arbitrator retained jurisdiction to ensure the correct calculation. The Court allowed the writ application, directing the correct compensation amount to be paid to the petitioners along with solatium and interest as per the original award.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ application, granting the petitioners compensation at the prevailing market rate, rejecting the estoppel argument, and clarifying the finality of the award for calculation purposes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
