State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Devrajbhai Chhaganbhai and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- section 123: [d.k. jain & r.m. lodha, jj] election petition charge of corrupt practice held, a charge of corrupt practice envisaged by the act is to be equated with a criminal charge and the standard of proof thereof world not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. if this test is not applied, a very serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the successful candidate whose election would not only be set aside, he may also incur disqualification to contest an election for a certain period entailing even extinction of his political career. undoubtedly, the onus lies heavily on the election petitioner to make out a strong case for setting aside an election. however, while insisting upon the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the courts are not required to extend or stretch the doctrine to such an extreme extent as to make it well nigh impossible to prove any allegation of corrupt practice. such an approach would defeat and frustrate the very laudable and sacrosanct object of the act in maintaining purity of the electoral process. section 123: [d.k. jain & r.m. lodha, jj] election petition..........enhancement under the amendment act. it is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that under clause 16 of the agreement since there is no agreement as' regards the rate of interest, the claimants are entitled to statutory rate of interest under section 28 as amended in act 68 of 1984. we do not appreciate the contention to be correct. parties having agreed to the payment of interest on the date of the contract, the rate of interest admittedly payable being 4-1/2%, they are entitled to interest at 4-1/2% and not to the enhanced rates under proviso to section 28 of the act, as amended by act 68 of 1984.3. the appeals are allowed and order in the review petition stands dismissed out original order stands confirmed. no costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Leave granted in SLP.

2. The only question that arises in these cases is: whether the respondents, having agreed under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') to payment of the compensation in terms of the agreement @ Rs. 140/- per guntha besides the additional compensation at the rate of 20% on account of development of the land and solatium @ 15% and interest prevailing as on that date, were entitled to claim the benefit under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984? This Court in State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Daya Shamji Bhai and Ors. : AIR1996SC133 considered the question elaborately and held that the parties having entered into the agreement under Section 11(2) were bound by the agreement and thereby, they were not entitled to any benefit other than what was agreed upon. Therefore, the High Court was not right in the impugned order passed in the review petition in allowing the enhancement under the Amendment Act. It is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that under Clause 16 of the agreement since there is no agreement as' regards the rate of interest, the claimants are entitled to statutory rate of interest under Section 28 as amended in Act 68 of 1984. We do not appreciate the contention to be correct. parties having agreed to the payment of interest on the date of the contract, the rate of interest admittedly payable being 4-1/2%, they are entitled to interest at 4-1/2% and not to the enhanced rates under proviso to Section 28 of the Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984.

3. The appeals are allowed and order in the review petition stands dismissed out original order stands confirmed. No costs.