The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager Vs. Smt. Sumegha Sharma W/O Rakesh Sharma (Since Deceased) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 3. the tribunal considered the cause of negligence on the basis of several judgements of the hon'ble supreme court as well as of this court and found that when the passenger died, due to collision of two vehicles, the nature of relief is composite one and the same can be claimed by the claimants from either of the vehicles. it appears that the court below was satisfied with the negligence of the tanker. therefore, according to us, such document is best piece of documentary evidence for arriving at a conclusion to calculate the multiplier.amitava lala, j.1. this appeal has been filed by the insurance company on the ground of contributory negligence, non-joinder of necessary parties and wrong fixation of quantum or compensation.2. fact remains that on agra-delhi high way a tanker and tata safari were coming from the same side. suddenly the tanker in question turned negligently from left to right side without giving any signal as a result thereof it collided with tata safari coming behind the tanker from the same side. the deceased was a passenger of the tata safari.3. the tribunal considered the cause of negligence on the basis of several judgements of the hon'ble supreme court as well as of this court and found that when the passenger died, due to collision of two vehicles, the nature of relief is composite one and the same can be claimed by the claimants from either of the vehicles.4. apart from the above, we find that there is gross negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker which has been insured by the insurance company moving from left to right as per the map as annexed with the appeal being annexure no.3 herein. therefore, when factually, it has been found that negligence is attributable to the tanker the claimants are entitled to claim compensation from the owner of the tanker. we do not find any reason as to why the decision of the tribunal is said to be fallible on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. if there is any confusion in the mind of the court about the negligence on the part of the tanker then cause of interference may arise. it appears that the court below was satisfied with the negligence of the tanker. therefore, we are of the considered view that there was no necessity of making. tata safari as a necessary party in the present claim petition. hence in totality, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed the tribunal in holding the owner of the tanker is responsible for the accident.5. however, the real dispute arose with regard to fixation of the quantum of the compensation by the tribunal. according to the appellant-insurance company, fixation of quantum being rs. 9,13,000/- is excessive nature and the same is without any basis and it such amount is allowed to be given to the claimants wrong precedent would be established for the future.6. factually, the deceased was an income tax payee. he has shown his income rs. 1,12,830/- for the year, 2005-2006. he has also shown as deduction, of rs. 17,535/- on account of one of the scheme of u.l.p. he has also shown his taxable income is as rs. 95,295/-. according to the appellant, the tribunal exceeded rs. 17,535/- from his actual income and even thereafter without any basis founded a figure of rs. 80,000/- as income and then deducted 1/3 being rs. 26,700/- thereby fixed his final income of rs. 53,300/ and awarded compensation on such amount by multiplying of 17 thereafter.7. a decision reported in 2007 (1) iac, 290 (sc) new india assurance co. limited v. smt. kalpana and ors. was cited. to show that multiplier of 13 will be applicable m the case of the deceased but not of 17, because the ratio of trilok chand as reported in : (1996)4scc362 u.p. state road transport corporation v. trilok chand it was held that schedule under the act is not a ready reckoner, but a guide. therefore, the rigidity of second schedule of section 163a of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the act) may not be applicable in this case.8. we find that said the judgment impugned before us is arising out of section 166 of the act, which speaks about 'just' compensation. in a case of 'just' compensation, the principle of multiplier under second schedule may not be applied but it is desirable that the multiplier system as far as for practicable are to be taken into account irrespective of the fact that the application is made under section 166 of the act to arrive at 'just' compensation. therefore, tire question arose when the applicability of the second schedule is only a guide, it can go not only on the lower side but also on the higher side depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. in the referred case the tribunal itself found that the income was not established, therefore, reduced the quantum of just compensation. in the present case the income is backed up by the documentary evidence i.e. the income tax return. therefore, according to us, such document is best piece of documentary evidence for arriving at a conclusion to calculate the multiplier. the tribunal did not signify any reason as to why on the basis of income supported by a proved document will be ignored and income will be reduced accordingly. sometime it is also passing in the mind of the court that huge sum is arriving at which should not be given, because such sum is not made to pay by way of compensation. in any event, when the court will consider the quantum, the relevant factors to come to conclusion cannot be ignored to say about any documentary evidence. therefore, we find that it is a fact of the case which remains for consideration of quantum of compensation by the tribunal. since the question of fixation of the quantum of compensation as fixed by the tribunal on higher side, we do not find any reason to delay the proceedings for the sake of hearing the parties. therefore, we dispose of the appeal by remanding it back to the tribunal concerned to determine quantum of compensation afresh in the light of the judgment and on the basis of the appropriate evidence and finalise the same in accordance with law.9. with the above direction, the appeal is disposed off finally at the admission stage. no order is passed as to costs.10. the statutory amount, if any, deposited be remitted back to the. tribunal as early as possible.v.c. misra, j.11. i agree.