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>Supreme Court Reverts Compensation to Rs. 10,000 per Bigha, Affirms 6% Interest Rate, Dismisses Review Petition.</h1> <h3>Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Versus Kanhaiya Lal and Ors.</h3> The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the HC's decision to enhance compensation to Rs. 11 per square yard, reverting it to Rs. 10,000 per bigha. The SC ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court could award compensation exceeding the claim made by the owners.2. Whether the High Court was right in awarding interest at 9% and 15% to the respondent-land owners.Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:Issue 1: Awarding Compensation Exceeding the ClaimThe appellant contended that the High Court erred in awarding compensation higher than the amount claimed by the landowners. The landowners claimed Rs. 10,000 per bigha, but the High Court awarded compensation at Rs. 11 per square yard. The appellant argued that, according to the unamended Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, the court is restricted from awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the landowners. The Supreme Court agreed, citing the unamended Section 25, which mandated that the amount awarded by the court should not exceed the amount claimed. The Court referenced Gobardhan Mahto v. State of Bihar, which supported this interpretation. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed an error in enhancing the compensation beyond Rs. 10,000 per bigha and thus set aside the enhancement to Rs. 11 per square yard.Issue 2: Awarding Interest at 9% and 15%The appellant challenged the High Court's decision to award interest at 9% and 15%, arguing that the unamended Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, which provided for a 6% interest rate, should apply. The Supreme Court noted that the amended Section 28, which included a 9% interest rate and a proviso for 15% interest after one year, was not applicable to awards made before the amendment. The Court referenced Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, which clarified that the amended provisions would only apply to awards made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984. Since the award in this case was made before these dates, the unamended Section 28 applied, limiting the interest rate to 6%. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's award of interest at 9% and 15%, confirming that the interest rate should be 6%.Review Petition:The review petition argued that the High Court's award was not beyond the claim made by the landowners due to a misunderstanding about the size of a bigha. The petitioner believed one bigha equaled 1000 square yards, but it actually comprised 2756 square yards. The Supreme Court found no merit in this review petition, as the award fell within the dates specified in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, allowing for compensation beyond the claimed amount under the amended provisions. The Court also dismissed a faint submission regarding the reliance on an agreement to sale for fixing market value, stating that such evidence was admissible and did not make the valuation illegal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's enhancement of compensation to Rs. 11 per square yard and the award of interest at 9% and 15%. The Court affirmed the interest rate at 6% and upheld the compensation enhancement to Rs. 10,000 per bigha. The review petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
