Skip to content


Smt. Vidyawati and ors. Vs. Collector of Agra and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1077 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1979SC733; (1979)4SCC153; 1979(11)LC158(SC)
ActsLand Acquisition Act - Sections 18
AppellantSmt. Vidyawati and ors.
RespondentCollector of Agra and ors.
Excerpt:
.....t.c. 691; the secretary of state for india v. scoble, [19o3], a.c. 299; jones v. commissioner of inland revenue, 7 t.c. 310; commissioner of inland revenue v. ramsay, 20 t.c. 79; vithaldas thakerdas and co. v. c.i.t., [1946] i.t.r. 822 and travancore sugars and chemicals ltd. v. c.i.t., (1966) 62 i.t.r. 566, referred to. (iv) in the present case even though cl. (2) of the deed of dissolution uses expressions such as "agreed to sell" and "the purchase price of the goodwill," these expressions are not determinative of the exact nature of the transaction or the relationship between the parties arising therefrom. clause (2), no doubt, prescribes the mode and the quantum of payment. but, the duration of payment is indefinite and secondly the amount is indefinite depending upon the rise and..........in the rate of compensation. but the learned district judge made a further direction that the entire compensation so raised would be paid to the landlady forgetting the fact that the tenants who had been recognized also had been found entitled to a share.3. the collector filed an appeal to the high court asking for the dilation of this direction for the payment of the entire sum to the landlady. the high court, while enhancing the compensation substantially in favour of the land owner, deleted the direction made by the district court to the effect that the entire compensation shall be paid over to the landlady. we think this was done very rightly. there is no doubt that apportionment does not come into the picture in a reference under section 18. factually, there is no doubt that.....
Judgment:

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. The only point in this appeal which relates to compensation for land acquisition is as to whether the entire amount refixed by way of enhancement by the High Court should go to the landlady-appellant only, or should be shared between her and the tenants such, as have proved their claims before the Land Acquisition Officer (The Wakf Board does not come into the picture as its appeal has been dismissed).

2. The brief facts are that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at a certain rate for the land acquired but he also apportioned the amount of compensation between the landlady, the owner, and the tenants on the land. Thereafter, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act led to an increase in the rate of compensation. But the learned District Judge made a further direction that the entire compensation so raised would be paid to the landlady forgetting the fact that the tenants who had been recognized also had been found entitled to a share.

3. The Collector filed an appeal to the High Court asking for the dilation of this direction for the payment of the entire sum to the landlady. The High Court, while enhancing the compensation substantially in favour of the land owner, deleted the direction made by the district court to the effect that the entire compensation shall be paid over to the landlady. We think this was done very rightly. There is no doubt that apportionment does not come into the picture in a reference under Section 18. Factually, there is no doubt that there are some tenants on the land. In this view, the direction given by the High Court that the entire amount shall not be payable to the landlay and that the direction given by the district court to that effect shall be deleted was just and legal.

4. To do final justice in terms of the law and in the circumstances of this case, we direct that the Collector shall pay to the land owner only the share that is due to her out of the total compensation and shall further proceed to determine the share due to the tenants such as were on the land on the date of the notification, and pay to them their share of the compensation in accordance with what is due to them. With these directions, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //