Holding

The claim of Rs 6,46,579.95 for the water reservoir and sluice gate was specifically made and is payable; the High Court’s interpretation of Section 25 was erroneous.

Summary

The appellant's 3.10 acres of land were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a canal project. In addition to the compensation for the land, the appellant claimed Rs 6,46,579.95 for a water reservoir and sluice gate, though an earlier claim of only Rs 25,000 had also been made. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded merely Rs 43,463, prompting the appellant to seek reference to the Reference Court, which eventually awarded Rs 5,45,738. The High Court set aside that award, holding that only the amount specifically claimed before the 1984 amendment (Rs 25,000) could be paid. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had indeed claimed Rs 6,46,579.95 in his 1978 application and that the High Court’s reasoning was untenable, thereby restoring the Reference Court's award. The appeal was allowed and costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether, under Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (pre‑1984 amendment), only the amounts specifically claimed are payable to the land‑holder.
Whether the appellant's claim of Rs 6,46,579.95 for the water reservoir and sluice gate is a valid claim despite an earlier claim of Rs 25,000.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 25, s. 4, s. 54

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationSection 25Reference CourtWater reservoirSluice gatePre‑1984 amendmentAppeal

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 689

KAMRUL ISLAM ALVI A
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Civil Appeal No. 7312 of 2009)

NOVEMBER 4, 2009
B
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 25 (Before Amendment
Act of 1984) - Land acquired - Award of compensation - In
Reference, land-holder in addition to enhancement of C
compensation for acquired land, claiming compensation of
Rs. 25, 0001- for Water Reservoir and Sluice Gate - Making
separate claim of about R~. 6. 5 lakhs, for the Reservoir and
Sluice Gate before Land Acquisition Officer - Reference Court
remitting the case to ascertain the compensation - Land D
Acquisition Officer determines the compensation at about Rs.
24, 0001- - Reference for enhancement again remitted - Land
Acquisition Officer upholding his earlier order - Reference
Court granting award of about Rs. 5 lakhs - High Court setting
aside the award holding that prior to 1984 amendment, only E
the amount claimed, to be paid - On appeal, held: High Court
failed to see that claimed amount was Rs. 6.5 lakhs -Award
by Reference Court was justified.

Appellant's land was acquired under Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. Dissatisfied with the award of F
compensation, he filed application before Reference
Court, claiming Rs. 25,0001- on account of Water
Reservoir and Sluice Gate, in addition to the
' compensation amount for the acquired land. He also filed
an application before Land Acquisition Officer claiming G
compensation of Rs. 6,46,579.951- for the Water Reservoir
and Sluice Gate. Reference Court observing that it
cannot exercise original jurisdiction, remitted the matter

689 H
l'

690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
I

A to Land Acquisition Officer for fixation of the
compensation. Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. ~
43,463. 75. Dissatisfied, appellant filed application for
reference claiming a sum of Rs. 6,46,579.95. Reference
Court remanded the matter to Land Acquisition Officer for
B assessment afresh. Land Acquisition Officer, again
granted Rs. 43,463/- as compensation. Appellant, once
again filed application for Reference. Reference court
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,45,738/- as compensation for the
Reservoir and Sluice Gate. Respondent-State approached -J
c High Court, whereby the order of reference court was set
aside. Hence, the present appeal.
• l

Allowing the appeal, the Court
.-•
HELD: 1.1. The reasoning of the High Court that u/s.
D 25 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which existed prior to
24.9.1984, only those amounts would be payable to the
appellant which have been claimed specifically, does not ·ci
appear to be borne out from the record. From the facts it
is crystal clear that a sum of Rs.6,46,5V9.95 was claimed
E for Water Reservoir and Sluice Gate. Counsel for the State
had probably due to bonafide mistake not brought to the
notice of the court, appellant's application/statement of
claim claiming specifically a sum of Rs. 6,46,579/- as
compensation for Water Reservoir and Sluice Gate.
F [Paras 15, 16 and 20] [694-E-G; 695-F-G] J,..
2. Once the order of reference court came to be
passed, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the
amount claimed for Water- Reservoir and Sluice Gate be
assessed at Rs. 6,46,579.95, and matter stood remitted to
G the Land Acquisition Officer, the parties went to trial with
the clear understanding that what has been claimed by
the appellant for the Water Reservoir and Sluice Gate was,fr ,.
not at the rate of Rs.25,000/- only. Against that order no r
appeal was preferred by the State and the said order had
·H
KAMRUL ISLAM ALVI v. STATE OF M.P. 691

attained finality. [Paras 18 and 19] [695-C-E] A
.~

CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
7312 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 02.04.2007 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in First Appeal No. 392 B
of 1995.

Pragati Neekhra, Suryanaryana Singh, for the Appellant.

Naveen Sharma, 8.S. Banthia, for the Respondent.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant's land _admeasuring 3.10 acres situated at
village Pehantala, Tehsil & District Hoshangabad falling in D
$Urvey No. 15, was acquired for construction of Bagda Branch
:: Canal. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 9.11.1973. The
Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 21.2.1975
determining t!l~ _a_mount .ot compensation -payable to the E
appellant. He assessed the compensation at Rs. 6,523.95. The
said compensation was accepted by the appellant under
protest and reference was sought to be made to the Reference
Cburt by filing an application under Section 18 of the Act.
F
3. Initially, when the appellant filed his application praying
for reference to the Civil Court before the Land Acquisition
Officer a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was claimed on account of water
reservoir and sluice gate constructed thereon, which was in
addition to a claim of compensation of Rs. 15,500/- in respect G
of the acquired land. However, record shows that appellant had
afso filed another application by way of statement of claim on·
22.3.78 before the Land Acquisition Officer, Hoshangabad,
praying therein that compensation for water reservoir and sluice
gate installed thereon should be payable at Rs.6,46,579.95.
H
.-
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 4. Accepting the contention of the appellant that the Land
Acquisition Officer had not awarded compensation with respect
~.
_to the water reservoir and the sluice gate, the Reference Court,
while noting that it cannot exercise the original jurisdiction of t
Land Acquisition Officer, vide order dated 05.07.1983, remitted
B the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer for fixation of
compensation with respect to water reservoir and sluice gate.
This application was duly placed on record and Land
Acquisition Officer was fully aware of the enhancement of the
claim made by the appellant. , ,,
-4

c 5. However, the Land Acquisition Officer vide his award
dated 28.10.1983 even though considered that appellant had
claimed Rs. 6,46,579.95, as compensation towards water
reservoir and sluice gate but in his wisdom accepting the
evaluation report of the Irrigation Ministry and rejecting that of
D an Engineer he awarded a sum of Rs.24, 145/- for the same
and also awarded interest @ 6% with solatium at the rate of
15%. Thus, the total amount came to be Rs.43,463.75. ,,..-
.......
6. Feeling dissatisfied therewith, the appellant preferred
E another reference being Reference No. 46/84.
7. It is also pertinent to~mention here -that-before the. ----------
Reference Court, that is, First Additional District Judge,
Hoshangabad in Reference Case No. 46/84 in the statement
of claim filed by the appellant on 24.11.1984, he had specifically
F claimed a sum of Rs.6,46,579.95 as compensation for the
. water reservoir and sluice gate installed therein.

8. Order dated 05.07.1983 passed by Reference Court
makes it clear that award was contested mainly on two grounds.
G Firstly, that the land sought to be acquired was irrigated and
market value was Rs. 5000/- per acre and secondly, the
compensation regarding Bandhan i.e. water reservoir and
sluice gate should have been fixed at Rs. 6,46,579.95. The
Reference Court was of the opinion that the compensation for
H
KAMRUL ISLAM ALVI v. STATE OF M.P. 693
[DEEPAK VERMA, J.]

the water reservoir and sluice gate had not been assessed, A
therefore, matter deserved to be remanded to the Land
Acquisition Officer.

9. Following is the relevant and operative part of the order
dated 5.7.1983: B
"In the result the reference is sent back to the Land
Acquisition Officer with direction that it shall fix the
compensation regarding the acquired Bandhan and gates.
The evidence adduced in the Court will be read as
evidence before the Land Acquisition Officer after fixing c
the compensation it is contested by the applicant then the
-4
• Land Acquisition Officer may again make reference as per
law. Parties to appear before Land Acquisition. Officer."

( Sd/- ) D
First Addi.Judge to the Cou~ of District Judge.

Hoshangabad.

10. After remand by Reference Court to the Land E
Acquisition Officer, fresh award came to be passed on
26.10.1983. In· the same, despite specific direction issued by
Reference· Court, ·as noted earlier, the amount of compensation
for water reservoir and sluice gate was again fixed only at Rs.
43,463/-. The appellant herein once again filed applic,ation
F
under Section 18 of the Act praying for reference to the Civil .
Court for grant of adequate and proper compensation for the
said reservoir and sluice gate.

11. The Reference Court vide order dated 20.06.1994,
after considering the evidence available on record and relying G
on a decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case
-i of Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana AIR 1981 (P&H) 57
fixed a sum of Rs.5,45, 738 as compensation for the reservoir
and sluice gate together with 30% solatium and interest as
required to be paid to the appellant under the provisions of the H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) $.C.R.

A Act.
.~''

12. Feeling aggrieved by the said order/award passed in
Reference Case No. 46/84 (old No. 1/77) on 20.6.1994,
respondent -the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred an appeal
B in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Section
54 of the Act.

13. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated
2.4.2007, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesn at Jabalpur was pleased to set aside the award dated
C 20.06.94 passed by Reference Court in favour of the appellant
and the compensation of Rs.43,463 for water reservoir arid
sluice gate, as was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer after
remand, has been· upheld.
I.

o 14. Hence this appeal..

15. Critical examination1 and perusal of the impugned order
passed by the High Court shows that it proceeded on the
assumption that appellant had not claimed amount of Rs.
6,46,579.95 as compensation for water reservoir and sluice
E gate and he had confined his claim only at Rs. 25,000/- for the
same.
-· _,,,_-----,·----
___ .

16. It appears to us·that theleamed Government Advocate,
who appeared before the Oivision ,Bench, had probably due to
•F bona fide mistake not br.ought .to the notice of the Court,
appellant's application/statement of claim dated 22.3.1978
claiming ~pacifically ·a sum of Rs. 6,46,579/- as compensation
for water reservoir and sluice gate.
"i

..._ 17. E~en though, this fact also finds place in the first order
v passed by /Reference Court on 5. 7.1983 wherein, in the second
part of th~ said order, which is relevant for the purpose of
deciding the said appeal, it has been mentioned as under:

"The applicant has contested the award on two grounds
-i firstly_ the acquired> land was irrigated one and the works
KAMRUL !SLAM ALVI v. STATE OF M.P. 695
[OEEPAK VERMA, J.]
value of it at the time of acquisition was Rs. 5000/- per acre A
hence he is entitled to Rs. 15,500/- as compensation for
the land, and secondly, the land acquisition officer has not
fixed the compensation regarding the Bandhan and its

- sluice gates fixed in the said Bandhan for which the
appellant is entitled to Rs.6,46,579.95 P as B
compensation."

18. It is not disputed before us that against the said order
passed by Reference Court on 5. 7 .1983, no appeal was
preferred by the State and the said order had attained finality. C
That being so, it can safely be presumed that respondent-State
was fully satisfied with the said order passed by Reference
Court on 5. 7.1983. In the said order, it is categorically
mentioned by the learned Judge of the Reference Court that
the amount claimed by appellant for water reservoir and sluice
gate be assessed at Rs.6,46,579.95. D

19. Once this order came to be passed and matter stood
remitted to the Land Acquisition Officer, obviously, the parties
went to trial with the clear understanding that what has been
claimed by the appellant herein for the water reservoir and E
sluice gate was as mentioned hereinabove and not at the rate
of Rs.25,000/- only as was claimed earlier.

20. The rei!lsoning qt the High Court that under Section 25
of the Act, which existed prior to 24.9.1984, only those amounts
would be payable to the appellant which have been claimed F
specifically, does not appear to be borne out from the record.
In the teeth of the order dated 5. 7.1983, appellant's application
dated 22.3.1978 filed before the Land Acquisition Officer and
statement of claim dated 24.11.1984 filed by the appellant, it
was crystal clear that a sum of Rs.6,46,579.95 was claimed for G
water reservoir and sluice gate. Thus, the reasoning of the High
~ Court does not appear to be legally tenable.

21. Obviously, it appears to be a bona-fide mistake on the
part of the learned Government Advocate who did not notice H
696 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. ..•

A the Order dated 5. 7 .1983 and the appellant's earlier application
filed before the Land Acquisition Officer on 22.3.1978 wherein
a specific claim was made for awarding compensation for the ""
water reservoir and sluice gate at Rs. 6,46,579.95. That being
so, we are of the opinion that looking to the matter from any ~

B angle, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law. It is
hereby set aside and ·quashed. The a~ard of the Reference
'
Court dated 20.6.1994 in Reference Case No. 46/84 (old No.
1/77) is hereby restored with all consequential benefits as .,,,
mentioned therein.
.,,,.
c 22. ·The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent with \.
costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 10,000/·,

K.K.T. Appeai allowed.

.'