Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Assam and Nagaland arises out of a preceding under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of an area of land belonging to the appellant company (hereinafter referred to as the company) measuring 61 bighas 1 katha and 7 lechas in village Khalihamari, Mouza Dibrugarh, in District Lakhimpur. Before the acquisition proceedings started, the Assam Railway had been negotiating with the company for purchase of the land, and it appears from the correspondence on record that the Railway was prepared to pay Rs.2500/- per bigha for the land. However, the transaction was not completed as the Executive Engineer, Assam Railway, at Dibrugarh pointed out that under the State Railway Rules land from private parties could be acquired only by acquisition proceedings. Proceedings for acquisition of the land started on October 17, 1951 when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published. In the meantime, the Sub-Deputy Collector, Dibrugarh, who was deputed to find out the market value of the land, assessed the value at Rupees 1000/- per bigha. After the Railway authorities came to know of this estimate the Chief Administrative Officer of the Railway wrote to the General Manager of the Company on October 27, 1951 saying that although before the acquisition proceedings started the Railway had agreed to pay Rs.2500/- per bigha, in view of the estimate submitted by the Sub-Deputy Collector, the Railway was not agreeable to pay such a high price. This letter was followed by another written on January 7, 1952, in which the Chief Administrative Officer referred to the "gentleman's agreement" about the price, adding that "as a Government concern", they had to "observe certain rules" and that it was "quite impossible" in the circumstances to agree to the price of Rs.2500/- per bigha. On September 7, 1955 the Collector made his award allowing compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per bigha plus 15 per cent of the amount as additional compensation under S.23(2). The company being dissatisfied with the award applied for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, who heard the reference rejected the same and affirmed the Collector's award. The company preferred an appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Additional District Judge. The High Court dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated March 13, 1964, but granted a certificate under Article 133 (1)(a) of the Constitution.
(2.) Mr. Sanghi for the respondents took a preliminary objection that the certificate granted by the High Court ought to be cancelled as it did not disclose any reason. Undoubtedly the certificate suffers from this infrimmity, but, having regard to the questions involved in the case which Mr. S. T. Desai for the appellant indicated to us, we thought that the case required consideration and heard the appeal treating it as one by special leave.
(3.) It appears that in the High Court it was contended on behalf of the Company that there was a binding contract between the Company and the Railway for the sale of the land at Rs.2500/- per bigha and that, if it was found that there was no such binding contract there was at least a "gentleman's agreement" regarding the price which indicated what a willing purchaser was ready to pay for the land. If this claim was found untenable, the alternative contention was that the market price of the land should be determined by capitalizing its rental value for twenty years. That there was an agreement between the parties about the price is not disputed; whether this amounted to a concluded contract does not seem to us a question that is required to be decided in this appeal. Assuming this was an agreement which bound the parties, the Collector had still the jurisdiction to determine the market value of the land. In Fort Press Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, 49 Ind App 331 the Privy Council held that an agreement between the parties as to the price does not interfere with the jurisdiction of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. Their Lordships observed: "It may be a very unusual thing that the (Collector) should proceed to determine what in his view the price should be, after he had evidence of a complete contract on the point, but if he thought right to do as their Lordships' judgment will not affect his taking such a course". The Privy Council further elaborated the point in Samiullah v. Collector of Aligarh, 73 Ind App 44 . Having analysed the relevant sections of the Lord Acquisition Act, their Lordships observed: "It is clear, therefore, that the land acquisition officer, in awarding the amount of compensation under S.11 is performing a statutory duty, a duty the exercise of which, in cases where land is to be acquired for a public purpose, concerns the public, since it affects the expenditure of public money. In assessing compensation he is bound to exercise his own judgment as to the correct basis of valuation and his judgment cannot be controlled by an agreement between the parties interested. On a reference under Section 18 the District Judge must also exercise his own judgment and consider, among other things, whether the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was based on a correct principle.";