Skip to content


Gopal Das Vs. Collector of Varanasi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1613 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC901; (1976)4SCC510
ActsLand Acquisition Act - Sections 4
AppellantGopal Das
RespondentCollector of Varanasi
Excerpt:
.....original side of the high court, for realising the amounts. the application was allowed, but the high court, in letters patent appeal, held that the application was barred by time. in appeal to this court, the appellant contended that in view of s. 45-o the application was within time: while the respondents contended that: (1) all the instalments fell due by 1st may 1948 by operation of the default clause, and therefore, the application was barred by art. 182 (7) of the limitation act, 1908, by the time s. 45- 0 was brought on the statute book; (ii) the section has no retrospective operation so as to revive a debt which had become barred at the date of its enactment; and (iii) if the default clause gave only an option to the appellant so that it could apply for execution as and when an.....h.r. khanna, j.1. this is an appeal of the allahabad high court whereby the high court in a land acquisition case enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the appellant from rs. 19,906/8/- to rupees 45,000/- besides solatium and interest.2. according to the appellant, he purchased land measuring 2.58 acres, situated in varanasi city for rs. 45,000/- as per sale deed, ex. 22 dated march 11, 1945. notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act for acquiring the land in question for kashi vidya pith was issued on june 17, 1947. the collector as per his award dated november 7, 1949 determined the amount of compensation payable to the appellant to be rs. 19,906/8 annas. on reference made to the district judge, the learned district judge agreed with the collector regarding the.....
Judgment:

H.R. Khanna, J.

1. This is an appeal of the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court in a land acquisition case enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the appellant from Rs. 19,906/8/- to Rupees 45,000/- besides solatium and interest.

2. According to the appellant, he purchased land measuring 2.58 acres, situated in Varanasi city for Rs. 45,000/- as per sale deed, Ex. 22 dated March 11, 1945. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land in question for Kashi Vidya Pith was issued on June 17, 1947. The Collector as per his award dated November 7, 1949 determined the amount of compensation payable to the appellant to be Rs. 19,906/8 annas. On reference made to the District Judge, the learned District Judge agreed with the Collector regarding the amount of compensation payable to the appellant for the land in question. The appellant then went up in appeal to the High Court against the award of the District judge. The High Court in appeal, as already mentioned, enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 45,000/- besides solatium of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of six per cent per annum.

3. We have heard Mr. Maheshwari on behalf of the appellant and find no cogent ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The High Court held the purchase of land in dispute by the appellant as per sale deed dated March 11, 1945 to be genuine, and awarded compensation in accordance with that sale deed. No cogent material was brought on record to show that there had been any increase in the value of the land subsequent to its purchase by the appellant on March 11, 1945 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on June 17, 1947. The High Court in the circumstances was justified in not awarding compensation in excess of Rs. 45,000/-. No infirmity has been brought to our notice in the judgment of the High Court as might induce us to interfere with the finding recorded by the High Court regarding the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. As no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, we make no order as to costs.


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