THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

D.N. SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 13,1997

 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]

, . ._Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 11(/) Proviso-Acquisition of land-Compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer-Approval of- C Power of Commissioner to reduce the award amount while granting

approval~Held, Commissioner can exercise the Powers-Matter remanded to High Court.

The respondents were claimants under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The dispute before the High Court was on the point, whether the D Commissioner exercising power under proviso to section 11 of the Act while granting approval to the proposal of the Land Acquisition Collector regarding the award of compensation to the claimants could reduce the suggested amount for different categories of lands sought to be acquired. The High Court relying upon its earlier decision held that the Commissioner has no such power. Hence the present appeal.

E Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: I. The Commissioner can exercise powers under section 11(1). of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court's decision cannot be sustained as the decision relied upon by it has been upset by this Court in F State of Bihar & Ors. v. Prem Kumar Singh's case*. (141-B; El

*State of Bihar & Ors. v. Prem Kumar Singh, Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7837 of 1993 decided on 30.11.1993, relied on.

2. The matter is remanded to the High Court to proceed further in G accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. (142-C(

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7695 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.92 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9137of1991.

8.8. Singh for the Appellants.

STATE OF BIMAR v. D.N. SINGH [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 141

A.P. Singh and K.N.Rai for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

The short question is whether the Commissioner exercising powers under the proviso to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, I 894 ('the Act' for short), while granting approval to the proposal of the Land Acquisition Collector regarding the award of compensation to the claimants could reduce the suggested amount for different categories of lands sought to be acquired. C

The High Court relying upon its earlier decision has taken a view that the Commissioner has no such power. It is true that the proviso to Section

11 lays down that no award shall be made by the Collector under sub-- section (I) of Section I I of the Act without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf and acting on the said proviso thf' State of Bihar by notification dated March 13, 1995 had autqorised the Commissioner of the Division in such class of cases where the toful compensation exceeds Rupees Five Lacs but does not exceed Rupees Fifteen Lacs, to be the authority under the proviso to Section I 1(1) of the Act. The High Court's decision cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the view which appealed to the High Court relying upon its earlier decision has been upset by this Court in its decision dated 30th November I 993 rendered in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (c) No. 7837of1993. Following the said decision it must be held that

the Commissioner could have exercised powers under Section 11 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act.

However, that would not be the end of the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that according to him, as the lands acquired in this case were about Ac. 1.15 gunths, the total award offered by the Collector would not be Rs. 5 lacs but would be much less. Therefore, even assuming G that the Commissioner had authority to decide the question under the proviso to Section 11 (I), if he was not the competent authority he could not have reduced the amount of compensation. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, on the other hand, submitted that the award under Section 11(1) is a comprehensive award and, therefore, if number ofpi!!ces of lands are acquired by the same notification, the award would be a com11osite H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5.S.C.R.

A one awarding compensation to different claimants. And ifthe total amount of compensation offered in such an award exceeds Rs. 5 lacs, it would fall within the powers of the authority entrusted with the function of approval under the proviso to Section 11 ( 1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that if that was so, then question would arise B whether the total compensation computed by the Collector as payable to all the claimants together would work out to more than Rs. 15 lacs in which case the Commissioner would not be the competent authority to act under proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act but it would be the State Government as the award would exceed Rs. 15 lacs. As these aspects are not dealt with by the High Court, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order under appeal and C remand the proceedings by restoring the writ petition on the file of the High Court with a request to proceed further in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversies raised before us on this aspect and it will be for the High Court to decide the same on its own in the light of the relevant evidence which may be produced before it. The appeal is allowed D accordingly, No costs.

S.V.K.I.

Appeal allowed.

,..