M/S. MODEL ECONOMIC TOWNSHIP LTD. versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR on 26 February 2019

854

[2019] 4 S.C.R. 854SUPREME COURT REPORTS

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 4 S.C.R.

M/S. MODEL ECONOMIC TOWNSHIP LTD.

A

v.

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.618 of 2018)

B

FEBRUARY 26, 2019

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6, 18 and 28-A(1) – Awarddeclared in respect of 136 acres of land, granting compensation @Rs.25,00,000/-per acre – Applications seeking reference u/s.18Cpreferred by many landholders but not by the petitioner (holdingabout 15 acres of land) – Compensation raised to Rs.41,81,500/-per acre – Thereafter, petitioner filed application seekingredetermination of compensation u/s.28-A(1)– Application allowedby Collector vide order dated 06.03.2014 granting same benefitsDto the petitioner in terms of the order of the Reference Court – Inthe meantime, matters traveled to the High Court, at the instance ofthe landholders – Compensation enhanced vide order dated24.05.2016 to Rs.2,80,00,000/-per acre in respect of comparablelands covered under the same notification – SLPs filed by State –Dismissed – Petitioner filed writ petition for quashing the orderEdated 06.03.2014 and redetermination of compensation in terms ofthe judgment of the High Court – Dismissed – On appeal, held:During the pendency of the present matter, Supreme Court summonedthe original record to apprise itself as to the circumstances in whichthe application u/s.28A was taken up for consideration by theFCollector – Record indicates that the Collector was given tounderstand that no appeal or further challenge was pendingconsideration before any superior court and that the matter hadattained finality – It is neither the case of the petitioner nor it iseven remotely contended that despite being aware of such pendingchallenge, the Collector proceeded with the matter and decided theGapplication u/s.28A– Petitioner approached the High Court onlyafter the compensation was enhanced by the High Court – There isnothing in the petition as to why the petitioner took so much time torealise that the course undertaken by the Collector was not keepingwith the principles laid down by Supreme Court – Explanation that H

the petitioner became aware for the first time on 03.08.2016 doesnot appear to be correct – For an entity who held more than 10% ofthe land under acquisition the way it conducted itself does not inspireconfidence– Idea u/s.28A is certainly to extend benefit of equalcompensation to landholders who, for some reasons had notpreferred appropriate applications for Reference in time but for acompany having profile such as the petitioner, inaction followed bydelay in filing petition in the High Court, disentitles the petitionerfrom claiming any relief u/Art.226 of the Constitution – High Courtjustified in rejecting the petition – Constitution of India – Art.226.

Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court

Conclusion

Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court HELD: 1. During the pendency of the present matter,Supreme Court had summoned the original record to apprise itselfas to the circumstances in which the application under Section28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was taken up forconsideration by the Collector. The record indicates that theCollector was given to understand that no appeal or furtherchallenge was pending consideration before any superior courtand that the matter had attained finality. It is neither the case ofthe petitioner nor it is even remotely contended that despite beingaware of such pending challenge, the Collector had proceededwith the matter and decided the application under Section 28A.It is also not the case that the petitioner had made the Collectoraware or brought it to the notice of the office about pendency ofsuch matter/further challenge. The petitioner approached theHigh Court on 15.11.2016 only after the compensation wasenhanced by the High Court to the level of Rs.2,80,00,000/- peracre in respect of comparable lands vide judgment dated24.5.2016. Again, there is nothing in the petition as to why thepetitioner took so much time to realise that the course undertakenby the Collector was not in keeping with the principles laid downby this Court. Looking to the profile of the petitioner which is alimited company, it can certainly be said to be having resourcesto equip itself with adequate knowledge on the front. Theexplanation offered by the petitioner in the affidavit pursuant tothe direction issued on 06.02.2019 is not satisfactory. Theexplanation that the petitioner became aware for the first timeon 03.08.2016 does not appear to be correct and reliable. Again, AB

C

DEF

G

H

[2019] 4 S.C.R.

Aif the whole-time Director of the petitioner-company who sworethe affidavit, was aware on 03.08.2016 that the compensation stoodenhanced by the High Court vide judgment and order dated24.05.2016, there is no reason why the filing of the writ petitionwas delayed till 15.11.2016. For an entity who held more than10% of the land under acquisition the way it conducted itself doesBnot inspire any confidence. The idea under Section 28A is certainlyto extend benefit of equal compensation to landholders who, forsome reasons had not preferred appropriate applications forReference in time but for a company having profile such as thepetitioner, inaction on the front followed by delay in filing petitionCin the High Court, disentitles the petitioner from claiming anyrelief under Article 226 of the Constitution. [Paras 9, 10][855-G-H; 856-A-G]

State of Haryana and Anr Etc. v. Moti Sagar and Ors.Etc. Etc. Decision of Supreme Court dated 05.01.2017Din SLP (Civil) Nos.4927-4965 of 2017 @CC Nos. 23630-23668 of 2016; State of Haryana andOrs. Etc. v. Ram Chander and Anr Etc.Decision ofSupreme Court dated 05.09.2017 in Civil AppealNos.11814-11864 of 2017;Moti Sagar and Ors. v. Stateof Haryana and Ors.Decision of Supreme Court datedE10.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 15015 of 2017;Bharatsing s/o. Gulabsingh Jakhad and Ors. v. Stateof Maharashtra and Ors.(2018) 11 SCC 92 ; BabuaRam v. State of U.P.(1995) 2 SCC 689 : [1994] 4 Suppl.SCR 148 – referred to.

FCase Law Reference

GCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 618 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2017 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 23688 of 2016(O&M)]H

Ranjit Kumar, Narendar Hooda, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka,D. N. Ray, Ms. Sarvshree, Rishi Raj Sharma, Justine George, RaviBharuka, Advs. for the Petitioner.

Manu Rajvanshi, Sunny Kadiyan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. forthe Respondent.

The Order of the Court was passed by

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. In the present case, pursuant tonotification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”for short) issued on 19.05.2008, followed by declaration under Section 6of the Act on 26.05.2008 in respect of 136 acres of land, award wasdeclared on 21.12.2009 granting compensation @ 25,00,000/- per acre.Applications seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act werepreferred by many landholders but the petitioner (formally known asM/s. Reliance Haryana SEZ Limited) holding about 15 acres of land didnot prefer any such application.

2. The Reference Court by order dated 16.11.2011 raisedcompensation to Rs.41,81,500/- per acre, whereafter an application waspreferred by the petitioner on 01.2.2012 seeking redetermination ofcompensation under Section 28-A(1) of the Act. Said application wasallowed on 06.03.2014 granting to the petitioner same benefits in termsof the order of the Reference Court. The Collector had proceeded onthe footing that no further challenge was pending and the assessmentmade by the Reference Court had attained finality.

3. At the instance of the landholders, in the meantime, the mattershad travelled to the High Court, which enhanced the compensation on24.05.2016 to Rs.2,80,00,000/- per acre in respect of comparable landscovered under the same notification. The determination by the HighCourt was challenged by the State and the landholders. Special LeavePetitions filed by State namely SLP (Civil) CC Nos. 23630-23668 of2016 titled State of Haryana and anr etc. vs. Moti Sagar and Ors.Etc. Etc. and all other connected matters were dismissed by this Courton 05.01.2017. Later, Civil Appeal Nos. 11814-11864 of 2017 titled Stateof Haryana andors. Etc. Vs. Ram Chander and Anr Etc. preferredby landholders came to be disposed of on 05.09.2017whereunderthisCourt deducted 15% towards development from the compensationawarded by the High Court. In respect of comparable lands i.e. lands A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Afrom village Dhankot the compensation thus got reduced to 2,38,00,000/-per acre. A separate order was passed in respect of Civil Appeal No.15015 of 2017 titled Moti Sagar and ors. Vs. State of Haryana andors.on 10.10.2017.

4. After the judgment of the High Court, the petitioner filed CWPBNo.23688 of 2016 praying for quashing of the order dated 06.03.2014and prayed for redetermination of compensation in terms of the judgmentof the High Court. It was asserted:

“That the said award dated 06.03.2014, Annexure P-5, however,has been made in the teeth of the ratio of law, as laid down by theHon’ble Supreme Court in BabuaRam v. State of U.P.; (1995) 2SCC 689, vide which it was held that the finality of thedetermination of compensation in a given case of acquisition andassessment of compensation is attained with the decree of theappellate court, be it the Hon’ble High Court of the Hon’bleSupreme Court, and the decree of the trial court gets merged inthe decree of the appellate court, which alone is executable. Inthe said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was, thus, pleasedto hold that when an appeal is pending in the High Court or itsappellate forum, the learned Collector should stay his hands in themeanwhile in the matter of redetermination of compensation tillthe appeal has been finally disposed of and he should redeterminethe compensation, in the cases of redetermination of the amountof compensation on the basis of the said award of the referencecourt only when the final judgment and decree of the appellateforum have been made. In the instant matter also, the first appealsagainst the said Reference Court Award dated 16.11.2011,Annexure P-3, since were already pending before this Hon’bleCourt on the day which the said subject Award dated 06.03.2014,Annexure P-5, was passed by the Respondent, therefore, theRespondent ought to have instead awaited the decision of thisHon’ble Court in those first appeals, before disposing of the saidapplication for redetermination of the amount of compensation onthe basis of the said award of the Court filed by the Petitionerimmediately, which exercise was in the teeth of the aforestatedsettled principles of law, as the said Award dated 16.11.2011, C

D

E

F

G

Annexure P-3, had not yet attained finality and was a subjectmatter of appeals before a superior court, i.e. this Hon’ble Court.The said subject Award dated 06.03.2014, Annexure P-5, passedby the Respondent was thus a premature attempt ofredetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis ofthe award of the Court, contrary to the law laid down by theHon’ble Supreme Court in Babua Ram’s case (supra).”

5. Said Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the High Court on10.10.2017. It was observed by the High Court:

“… … …The petitioner herein is a limited company. Once itcould file application under Section 28A of the Act just within thetime permitted under Section 28A of the Act after the award wasannounced by the Reference Court, it cannot be claimed that itwas not knowing the status of other cases or the remedy againstthe award passed by the Collector on application under Section28A of the Act. Section 28A(3) of the Act provides that in caseeither of the parties is aggrieved against the award passed by theCollector, it can file application for reference of the dispute to theCourt. The aforesaid remedy was not availed of by the petitioner.The period thereof expired long back.”

6. The aforesaid judgment dated 10.10.2017 is presently underchallenge. After hearing learned counsel for both sides, on 06.02.2019this Court posed certain questions on which response from the petitionerwas sought. The questions were posed as those factual details were notavailable on record. Thereafter, an affidavit was filed giving answers tosaid questions as under:- “4. That the petitioner submits the following response to the issuesin terms of the aforesaid order dated 06.02.2019:

(a) Whether any application for reference was preferred afterthe disposal of application under Section 28A of the Act?

Response: No.

(b) Was the petitioner aware while the application under Section28A of the Act was pending consideration that the appeals werepreferred and were pending in the appellate court?

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Response: No.

(c) When did the petitioner come to know for the first time aboutthe pendency or disposal of the appeals by the High Court?

Response: The petitioner never came to know of the pendencyof the appeals before the High Court till disposal of its applicationunder Section 28A on 06.03.2014. The petitioner came to knowabout the disposal of the said appeals for the first time on03.08.2016.

The Petitioner had received a notice dated 04.07.2016 inrespect of one of its subsidiary company namely NemitaCommercial Private Limited, under sec. 9 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, UrbanEstate, Haryana for hearing with regard to land acquisitionpertaining to Village Sihi Hadbast no. 108, Tehsil Manesar, DistrictGurgaon/Rewari. This land acquisition arose out of a notificationunder sec. 4 dated 07.08.2013 and notification under sec. 6 dated05.08.2014. This hearing was scheduled to be held on 03.08.2016.

It was during this hearing on 03.08.2016 that therepresentative of the Petitioner, Shri Satyawan, came to knowabout the decision of the Hon’ble High Court dated 24.05.2016 inMoti Sagar &Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (RFA no.1580 of 2012) filed by the other landowners. It is pertinent tonote that the petitioner’s application under section 28A and thehearing held on 03.08.2016 pertaining to Nemita CommercialPrivate Limited was heard in the same office of the LandAcquisition Collector.

Thereafter, the Petitioner contacted Shri Shailendra Jain, Sr. Adv.who had also argued on behalf of the writ petitioners in MotiSagar and engaged him to argue the writ petition bearing C.W.P.No. 23688 of 2016 (O&M) challenging the order dated 06.03.2014whereby the application under section 28A filed by the petitionerwas disposed off. English translation and true copy of the noticedated 04.07.2016 are being annexed herewith and marked asANNEXURE ‘B’ (pages 11 to 13). In support, the affidavit ofthe aforesaid representative of the Petitioner, Shri Satyawan isalso filed along with the present affidavit.

(d) When was the writ petition filed in the High Court?

Response: The petitioner had filed its writ petition on 15.11.2016.”

7. Relying on the decision of this Court in Bharatsing s/o.Gulabsingh Jakhad and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1it is contended by the petitioner that the Collector ought to have keptthe application under Section 28A of the Act pending till the appealswere decided and that for the failure of the Collector on that count, thepetitioner ought not to be put to prejudice. It is, therefore, submitted thatthe order dated 06.03.2014 be set aside; the entire exercise under Section28A be undertaken de novo keeping in mind the compensation as awardedby the High Court (as scaled by this Court later).

8. In Bharatsing[1 ]the award was passed on 04.06.1977. TheReference Court allowed enhancement vide decision dated 01.10.1992,whereafter application under Section 28A of the Act was preferred on31.12.1992. Said application was decided on 25.10.2000 that is almosteight years after the application was preferred. Around this time, crossappeals preferred by the landholders as well as the State against thedecision of the Reference Court were pending in the High Court. Theseappeals were disposed of by the High Court on 23.03.2009 grantingcompensation at an enhanced rate of Rs.18000 per acre. Soon thereafter,second application under Section 28A of the Act was preferred on27.05.2009 seeking benefit under the judgment of the High Court dated23.03.2009. This second application came to be dismissed by the HighCourt. This Court affirmed the view that second application under Section28A could not be preferred but found that the disposal of the firstapplication under Section 28A on 25.10.2000 was not in conformity withthe law laid down by this Court in Babua Ram vs. State of U.P.[2] andother subsequent cases. In the facts of the case, this Court, thereforedirected that the original application preferred on 31.12.1992 be consideredafresh.

9. During the pendency of the present matter, this Court hadsummoned the original record to apprise itself as to the circumstances inwhich the application under Section 28A of the Act was taken up forconsideration by the Collector. The record indicates that the Collectorwas given to understand that no appeal or further challenge was pending 1(2018) 11 SCC 92

2(1995) 2 SCC 689

A

B

C

DEF

G

Aconsideration before any superior court and that the matter had attainedfinality.

10. It is neither the case of the petitioner nor it is even remotelycontended that despite being aware of such pending challenge, theCollector had proceeded with the matter and decided the applicationBunder Section 28A. It is also not the case that the petitioner had madethe Collector aware or brought it to the notice of the office about pendencyof such matter/further challenge. The petitioner approached the HighCourt on 15.11.2016 only after the compensation was enhanced by theHigh Court to the level of Rs.2,80,00,000/- per acre in respect ofcomparable lands vide judgment dated 24.5.2016. Again, there is nothingCin the petition as to why the petitioner took so much time to realise thatthe course undertaken by the Collector was not in keeping with theprinciples laid down by this Court. Looking to the profile of the petitionerwhich is a limited company, it can certainly be said to be having resourcesto equip itself with adequate knowledge on the front. The explanationDoffered by the petitioner in the affidavit pursuant to the direction issuedon 06.02.2019, in our view, is not satisfactory. The explanation that thepetitioner became aware for the first time on 03.08.2016 does not appearto be correct and reliable. Again, if Shri Satyawan who swore the affidavitas whole-time Director of the petitioner-company, was aware on03.08.2016 that the compensation stood enhanced by the High CourtEvide judgment and order dated 24.05.2016, there is no reason why thefiling of the writ petition was delayed till 15.11.2016. For an entity whoheld more than 10% of the land under acquisition the way it conducteditself does not inspire any confidence. The idea under Section 28A iscertainly to extend benefit of equal compensation to landholders who,Ffor some reasons had not preferred appropriate applications for Referencein time but for a company having profile such as the petitioner, inactionon the front followed by delay in filing petition in the High Court, in ourview, disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief under Article 226of the Constitution.

G11. The High Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the petition.We see no reason to interfere. This Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Divya Pandey

S.L.P. dismissed.

H