State of Bihar & Ors Vs. D. N. Singh & Ors
 INSC 819 (13
MAJMUDAR, S.P. KURDUKAR
have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
short question is whether the Commissioner exercising powers under the proviso
to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ('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.
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 (1) of
Section 11 of the Act without the previous approval of the appropriate
Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in
his behalf and acting on the said proviso the state of Bihar by notification
dated March 13, 1995 had authorised the Commissioner of the Division in such
class of cases where the total compensation exceeds Rupees Five Lacs but does
not exceed Rupees Fifteen Lacs, to be the authority under the proviso to
Section 11(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 1993 rendered in Civil Appeal arising
out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7873 of 1993.
the said decision it must be held that the Commissioner could have exercised
powers under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
that would not be the end of the matter.
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 that the Commissioner had authority to decide the question under the
proviso to Section 11(1), 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
of pieces of lands are acquired by the same notification, the award would be a
composite one awarding compensation to different claimants. And if the 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.
counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that if that was so,
then question wold arise 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 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 accordingly. No costs.