1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
2. On 27th February, 2001 this Court passed the following order:
"The petitioners had filed a writ petition challenging an acquisition made in the Land Acquisition Act, inter alia, on the ground that inordinate delay in completion of the acquisition proceedings lapsed the acquisition itself. The acquisition in question was in relation to a parcel of the land belonging to the petitioners as well as some superstructure built on it. In respect of land, an award was passed by the land acquisition collector on 16th March, 1967, and the said land acquisition collector had stated for the superstructure there will be a separate valuation. But without making the valuation for the superstructure when the authorities wanted to take possession in 1987, the petitioners assailed the acquisition. The High Court has refused to interfere with the acquisition. Against that, the present special leave petition has been filed.
It is stated to us that in respect of valuation for the land, an appeal is pending before the Delhi High Court, being numbered RFA No. 264/1980. in fitness of things, we think it appropriate that appeal should get transferred to this Court and heard and finally disposed of along with this SLP, so that the court will be in a position to decide whether to annul the acquisition in question or to grant certain compensatory relief. In these circumstances, we direct that RFA No. 264/1980 pending in the Delhi High Court be transferred to this Court.
Put up for final disposal alongwith this SLP in the month of April, 2001 on a non-miscellaneous day."
3. When the matter came up for hearing on 6th February, 2002, the Court referred it to a bench of three judges by observing thus:
"One of us doubts the correctness of the decisions rendered by a bench of two judges in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sharan Pal Singh and Ors. and Mohaji and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. -
[JT 1995 (8) SC 599], wherein it is held that where the land acquisition officer leaves the question for determination of compensation for superstructures for a later date then the award for the superstructures would be deemed to be nil as not laying the good law."
4. At the time of hearing of this matter Mr. Shanti Bhushan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that there is total lapse and negligence on the part of the acquiring party in not taking proper steps, firstly, for awarding any amount for the superstructure which was existing on the date of acquiring the land. He submitted that the land acquisition officer has specifically observed in the award that for superstructure award would be passed subsequently after getting valuation from the concerned authority. He, further, points out that after the decision rendered by this Court in Ram Chand and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1. , the land acquisition officer has to take appropriate steps for acquiring the land within a reasonable time and that has been recognised by the parliament by amending section 6 by providing a period of two years for issuing notification under section 6. Similarly, Section 11A is added to provide that award shall be made within a period of two years. He, therefore, submitted that even presuming that land acquisition officer has passed the award giving nil amount for the superstructure then also the respondents ought to have taken steps for taking possession of the land within a reasonable time and they could not wait from 1967 onwards to 1987. However, he submitted that to avoid all such controversy the claimants are prepared to accept reasonable compensation in accordance with law for the superstructure.
5. Considering this aspect and principles underlying Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also negligence on the part of the concerned officers in not passing appropriate award at proper stage, we think that ends of justice would be met if we direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as claimed for the superstructure with 12% interest from the date of the award, i.e. 16.03.1967 within a period of two months from today. It is also agreed by the learned senior counsel for the claimants that appellant would handover the possession of the land and superstructure in question within a period of fifteen days from today.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
T.C. (C) 13 of 2001
7. It has been agreed that for the similar lands compensation is determined by this Court at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per bigha. In this view of the matter, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this case. Hence, it is dismissed as withdrawn.