Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ORISSA versus RAJAKISHORE DAS
- Decided
- 5 February 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] 2 S.C.R. 141 · 1996 INSC 186
- Also cited as
- (1996) 4 SCC 221
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 141, margin E
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.
p. 141, margin E
The notification under section 4U) 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 lakh. 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.
pp. 141–142, margin F
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 unauthorised. 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 bµilding without permission of any authority and since the Government is entitled to have the unauthorised 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.
p. 142, margin A
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. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 142, margin E