Supreme Court of India
State Of Orissa vs Rajakishore Das on 5 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1508, 1996 SCC (4) 221, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1508, 1996 AIR SCW 1569, 1996 (4) SCC 221, (1996) 2 SCR 141 (SC), (1996) 3 JT 560 (SC), (1996) 2 LANDLR 106, (1996) 2 RAJ LW 72, (1996) 2 CIVLJ 714, (1996) 1 RENTLR 751, (1996) 2 RRR 139, (1996) 2 SCJ 312, (1996) LACC 316, (1996) 3 ICC 31, (1996) 3 CURCC 47
Author: K. Ramaswamy
Bench: K. Ramaswamy
PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJAKISHORE DAS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION: 1996 AIR 1508 1996 SCC (4) 221 JT 1996 (3) 560 1996 SCALE (3)68 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R Leave granted.
Though the respondent has been served, he does not appear either in person or through counsel. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 1.3.1990 made by the High Court of Orissa in First Appeal No.252/87.
The notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Gazette on 25.3.1985 acquiring about 120 decimals of land for extension of Vidyut Marg in Bhubaneshwar Municipality. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award under Section 11 on 7.10.1985 awarding a total compensation of a sum of Rs.1 lakhs. Dissatisfied therewith, the respondent sought for reference and also demanded Rs.2 lakhs for the building constructed thereon. The reference Court by judgment and decree dated 19.8.1987 awarded compensation @ Rs.1,66,000/- per acre and other statutory benefits. On further appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation in respect of The building from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1 lakh. Feeling aggrieved with the enhanced compensation in respect of the building, this appeal by special leave has been filed.
The Division Bench has recorded the finding that though a sale was purported to have been made of the half constructed building on March 30, 1981 for residential purpose, the sanction for the construction of the building from the Municipality was not obtained. The construction was unauthorized. Nonetheless, the High Court directed the payment of compensation. We find that the approach of the High Court is clearly illegal. Having recorded the finding that the respondent had constructed the building without permission of any authority and since the Government is entitled to have the unauthorized construction demolished, unless the owner himself voluntarily demolishes and takes the value of the building structure as salvage material. the High Court ought to have held that the respondent had proceeded unauthorisedly in constructing the building having had the knowledge of the acquisition. Therefore, the authorities are not bound by such construction. Consequently, the State is not bound to pay compensation of the value of such a building constructed unauthorisedly. The judgment and order passed by the High Court directing payment of compensation of Rs.90,000/- is clearly illegal.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the reference Court for a sum of Rs.10,000/- is upheld and the direction for payment of the balance amount stands set aside. No costs.