ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD versus GILLAPUKRI TEA COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. ETC. on 28 January 2021

[2021] 1 S.C.R. 181

ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

v.

GILLAPUKRI TEA COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. ETC.(Civil Appeal Nos. 251-252 of 2021)

JANUARY 28, 2021

[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition:

Acquisition of land – Notifications u/ss. 4 and 6 of LandAcquisition Act issued respectively on 4.8.2008 and 17.6.2009 –By letter dated 30.01.2010 sought approval of the ‘award’ and the‘land acquisition estimate’ (in the prescribed Form No. 15 and FormNo. 5 respectively) – Approval granted by letter dated 05.03.2010– Land-owner thereafter sought reference u/s. 18 of Land AcquisitionAct for reassessment of compensation – The Land-owner alsoreceived the compensation and possession of the land was handed-over on 21.05.2010 – The land-owner thereafter relying on lettersthat 21.07.2012 and 06.01.2014 contended that no award wasapproved by letter dated 05.03.2010 (thereby only land acquisitionestimate was approved) and thus it led to lapsing of previousacquisition proceedings and initiation of fresh acquisitionproceedings on 07.08.2012, culminating in approval of the awardfor the first time on 04.01.2014 – The landowner claimed freshaward by determining the compensation payable in terms of 2013Act because the award under the fresh proceedings was made andapproved after coming into force of 2013 Act – High Court allowedthe case of the land-owner – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Thefacts of the case including conduct of the land-owner show that theaward was approved on 05.03.2010 – Once the award had beenapproved, compensation paid, possession of the land handed-over,there was no question of lapsing u/s. 24 of Land Acquisition Act,1894 – Such land cannot be re-opened for acquisition – LandAcquisition Act, 1894 – Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementAct, 2013 – s. 24 – Assam Land Acquisition Manual.

181

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

182SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AAllowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1.It is uncontested that vide letter dated 30.01.2010both the award and the land acquisition estimate were sent to theState Government for its approval. It is pertinent to note that theaward was in the format of Form No. 15 which is the statutorilyBprescribed form for a land acquisition award under the AssamLand Acquisition Manual. This is also true of the land acquisitionestimate which was as per the prescribed format of Form No. 5.As such, the only further action required of the State Governmentwas to approve the award which was already in the statutorilyprescribed form. This is precisely what was done vide the letterCdated 05.03.2010 issued by the Deputy Secretary to theGovernment of Assam, Revenue Department. [Para 13][187-G-H; 188-A-B]

2. The letter dated 05.03.2010 was issued in response tothe letter dated 30.01.2010, whereunder approval of the awardDand the land acquisition estimate was sought. While this letteronly expressly mentions the land acquisition estimate and notthe award, a combined reading of this letter with the precedingletter dated 30.01.2010 and the subsequent conduct of the parties,including the first respondent, make it evident that the awardEstood approved by letter dated 05.03.2010. Copies of both theletters of 30.01.2010 and 05.03.2010 were also addressed to theIndustries & Commerce Department of the Government ofAssam. Vide the initial letter of 30.01.2010, the said Departmentwas requested to arrange balance funds for making payment tothe land owners as per the award. In furtherance of this, vide theFletter of 05.03.2010, the said Department was directed to placethe balance estimated fund at the disposal of the DeputyCommissioner. If the award which had been sent for approvalalongwith the estimate had not been approved by the said letterdated 05.03.2010, this direction for making funds for payment toGlandowners available to the Deputy Commissioner would not havebeen called for. This view is fortified by the subsequent conductof the parties. [Para 14][188-C-F]

3. It is undisputed that the award amount was indeed madeavailable to the Deputy Commissioner and the awarded sum was H

duly paid to and received by the first respondent. Not only didthe first respondent receive compensation pursuant to the award,it in fact sought enhancement of the same vide its reassessmentpetition dated 05.05.2010 u/s 18 of the L.A. Act addressed to theDeputy Commissioner. It is also not contested that videpossession certificate dated 21.05.2010, the first respondenthanded over possession to the Deputy Commissioner and thaton 11.06.2010 possession of the land was ultimately handed overto the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner. What clearlyemerges from the above is that after the letter dated 05.03.2010,it was the common belief of the State Government, the appellantas well as the first respondent that the award had been approvedand that now actions subsequent thereto viz. payment and receiptof compensation, handover of possession, seeking reassessmentof the compensation were needed to be undertaken.[Para 15][188-F-H; 189-A-B]

4. Once the award has been approved, compensation hasbeen paid thereunder and possession of the land has been handedover to the Government, acquisition proceedings could not havebeen reopened, including by way of re-notification of the alreadyacquired land under Section 4 of the L.A. Act by the Government.The question of lapsing under Section 24 of the L.A. Act couldnot have arisen in this case once the award was approved on05.03.2010. [Para 17][189-C-D]

D. Hanumanth SA & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka andOrs. (2010) 10 SCC 656 : [2010] 12 SCR 1098 – relied on.

5. Once possession is taken by the State, the land vestsabsolutely with the State and the title of the landowner ceases.High Court wrongly relied on the letters dated 21.07.2012 and06.01.2014 to nullify the original award and allow fresh acquisitionproceedings in respect of the first respondent’s land which hadalready been acquired and has been under the possession of theappellant since 11.06.2010. [Para 18][190-D-E]

Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.(2020) 8 SCC 129: [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACase Law Reference

[2010] 12 SCR 1098relied onPara 18[2020] 3 SCR 1followedPara 18

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 251-B252 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2019 of the High Courtof Gauhati at Guwahati in Writ Appeal No. 219 of 2017 and Writ AppealNo. 220 of 2017.

Jayant Bhushan Sr. Adv., Nishant Das, Abhay Singh , KaustubhCShukla, Ms. Ankita Agarwal, Atul Kumar, Ms. Ayushi Jain, SenthilJagadeesan, Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Ms. SonakshiMalhan, Shuvodeep Roy, Rahul Raj Mishra, Advs. for the appearingparties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDS. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited has filedthese appeals challenging the judgment and order in Writ Appeal Nos.219 & 220 of 2017 dated 14.03.2019 whereby the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Guwahati has dismissed the said appeals confirming theEorder of the Learned Single Judge in Review Petition Nos. 79 & 80 of2016.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under.

4. In order to set up a plastic park, the Government of AssamFdecided to acquire a portion of the land belonging to the first respondentsituated at Gillapukri Tea Estate, Village Gillapukri, Tinsukia, Assam.The Government of Assam, in exercise of the power vested in it underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘L.A. Act’) issueda notification dated 04.08.2008, which was published in the AssamGazette on 08.08.2008, expressing its intention to acquire 1,166 biggas, 1Gkatha, 14 lessas of land of the aforesaid Gillapukri Tea Estate. Theproceedings being L.A Case No. 1 of 2008 were also initiated for thepurpose of acquisition before the District Collector, Tinsukia and, forthat purpose, declaration dated 17.06.2009 in terms of Section 6(1) ofthe L.A. Act was published in the Assam Gazette. The appellant was

H

appointed as the nodal agency to deal with the acquisition proceedingsvide appointment letter dated 24.06.2009.

5. The Deputy Commissioner and Collector, District Tinsukia,addressed a letter dated 30.01.2010 to the Principal Secretary to theGovernment of Assam, Revenue Department to seek approval of theaward and the land acquisition estimate which were enclosed therewithin the prescribed Form No. 15 and Form No. 5 respectively. In response,the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, RevenueDepartment, addressed a letter dated 05.03.2010 to the DeputyCommissioner whereby approval, as sought vide the aforesaid letter dated30.01.2010, was granted. As will be seen in the following paragraphs,the controversy between the parties before us is whether this letter wasapproval of both the award and the estimate or only the estimate.Thereafter, the owner of the land, i.e. the first respondent herein, addresseda letter dated 05.05.2010 to the Commissioner seeking reference of thematter to the District Judge, Tinsukia, under Section 18 of the L.A. Actfor reassessment of the compensation awarded to it. It is contended thatother similar applications were also received from different families atdifferent levels. It is further contended that in the letter dated 05.05.2010,the first respondent admitted that it had received a sum of Rs. 4.95crores on 08.04.2010 by a crossed cheque immediately after the letterfor approval dated 05.03.2010 was passed by the Commissioner. It isalso contended that vide possession certificate dated 21.05.2010,possession was delivered to the Deputy Commissioner, and thereafteron 11.06.2010, possession of the land was handed over to the appellantby the Deputy Commissioner.

6. The first respondent has not disputed the issuance of thepreliminary and final notification. However, it is contended that no awardwas approved pursuant to the letter dated 05.03.2010. It is the firstrespondent’s case that vide this letter, only the land acquisition estimatewas approved and not the award. This, in the first respondent’s view, ledto lapsing of the proceedings and initiation of fresh acquisition proceedingsin 2012 which culminated in approval of the award for the first time on04.01.2014. For this purpose, a fresh notification under Section 4 of theL.A. Act was published on 07.08.2012 and a declaration was also issuedon 20.11.2012. Thereafter, the Commissioner issued a notice purportedlyunder Section 9 of the L.A. Act to the persons interested in the land tosubmit their objections and claims. On 04.01.2014, a fresh award was AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apassed and the Deputy Secretary, Government of Assam, RevenueDepartment addressed a letter dated 06.01.2014 to the DeputyCommissioner conveying approval of the said fresh award. The firstrespondent contends that a comparison of this approval letter dated06.01.2014 with the approval letter dated 05.03.2010 under the originalacquisition proceedings would clearly indicate that under the letter datedB05.03.2010, only the estimate was approved and not the award. Sincethe award under the fresh proceedings was approved and made aftercoming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencyin Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short‘2013 Act’), the first respondent approached the Deputy CommissionerCto seek a fresh award by determining the compensation payable in termsof Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

7. The first respondent has denied the claim of the appellant thatan award had been approved on 05.03.2010 and has mainly rested itscase on the letter dated 21.07.2012 addressed by the Deputy Secretary,DGovernment of Assam, Revenue Department to the DeputyCommissioner wherein the Deputy Secretary admitted to not havingdrawn the award within two years from the date of publication of thedeclaration under the original acquisition proceedings. The firstrespondent has also relied upon the letter dated 06.01.2014 sent by theDeputy Secretary to the Government of Assam which, as per the firstErespondent, suggests that no award had been approved under the originalacquisition proceedings.

8. On the contrary, the State Government has taken a stand thatan award was approved by the State Government on 05.03.2010 andthat the same had been made within two years of the declaration. It isFalso contended that pursuant to the award, possession of the land wastaken from the first respondent by the acquiring authority and the landwas then handed over to the appellant. It was also submitted that theentire compensation had been paid to the first respondent. The StateGovernment contends that the need for an additional award arose onlyGbecause some of the land owners of the land initially proposed to beacquired were left out in the original award that was approved on05.03.2010.

9. Appearing for the appellant Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned seniorcounsel has submitted that the award had been passed in Form No. 15Hof the Assam Land Acquisition Manual and was approved by the State on 05.03.2010. Possession of the land was also handed over by the firstrespondent to the acquiring authority on 21.05.2010 and was thereafterhanded over to the appellant on 11.06.2010. Shri Bhushan submitted thatthe compensation was also received by the first respondent and, in fact,the first respondent had also sought enhancement of the compensationallowed under the said award. It is Shri Bhushan’s submission that oncethe land stood vested in the State, it could not have been acquired again.Therefore, any issuance of fresh notification under Section 4 and 6 oreven preparing of a fresh award by the State Government in respect ofthe first respondent’s land will be non est or infructuous. He furthersubmits that the letters dated 21.07.2012 and 06.01.2014 relied upon bythe High Court could not have had the effect of re-acquiring the land inquestion since it already stood vested in the State Government.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Assam hassupported the stand of the appellant.

11. However, Shri Senthil Jagadeesan, learned counsel for thefirst respondent submits that the aforesaid two letters would conclusivelyestablish that no approval to an award was granted by the StateGovernment under the original acquisition proceedings. It is his submissionthat the two aforesaid letters dated 21.07.2012 and 06.01.2014 whichwere relied upon by the Division Bench of the High Court would clearlyestablish the same. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of these appeals.

12. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.Having regard to the contentions urged, the crucial question forconsideration is whether an award in respect of the first respondent’sland was approved by the State Government on 05.03.2010. Needlessto say, if the award was not approved on 05.03.2010, but rather on06.01.2014 as contended by the first respondent, then the 2013 Act willbe applicable and the first respondent will be eligible to receivecompensation in accordance therewith.

13. To determine whether the award had indeed been approvedon 05.03.2010, we first have to examine the letter dated 30.01.2010through which the State Government’s approval of the award was soughtby the Deputy Commissioner. It is uncontested that vide this letter boththe award and the land acquisition estimate were sent to the StateGovernment for its approval. It is pertinent to note that the award was in AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Athe format of Form No. 15 which is the statutorily prescribed form for aland acquisition award under the Assam Land Acquisition Manual. Thisis also true of the land acquisition estimate which was as per theprescribed format of Form No. 5. As such, the only further action requiredof the State Government was to approve the award which was alreadyin the statutorily prescribed form. This is precisely what was done videBthe letter dated 05.03.2010 issued by the Deputy Secretary to theGovernment of Assam, Revenue Department.

14. This letter dated 05.03.2010 was issued in response to theletter dated 30.01.2010, whereunder approval of the award and the landacquisition estimate was sought. While this letter only expressly mentionsCthe land acquisition estimate and not the award, a combined reading ofthis letter with the preceding letter dated 30.01.2010 and the subsequentconduct of the parties, including the first respondent, make it evidentthat the award stood approved by this letter of 05.03.2010. It isnoteworthy that copies of both the letters of 30.01.2010 and 05.03.2010Dwere also addressed to the Industries & Commerce Department of theGovernment of Assam. Vide the initial letter of 30.01.2010, the saidDepartment was requested to arrange balance funds for making paymentto the land owners as per the award. In furtherance of this, vide theletter of 05.03.2010, the said Department was directed to place thebalance estimated fund at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner. WeEfind strength in the appellant’s submission that if the award which hadbeen sent for approval alongwith the estimate had not been approved bythe said letter dated 05.03.2010, this direction for making funds for paymentto landowners available to the Deputy Commissioner would not havebeen called for. This view is fortified by the subsequent conduct of theFparties, as particularly evinced by the below mentioned actions.

15. It is undisputed that the award amount was indeed madeavailable to the Deputy Commissioner and the awarded sum was dulypaid to and received by the first respondent. Not only did the firstrespondent receive compensation pursuant to the award, it in fact soughtGenhancement of the same vide its reassessment petition dated 05.05.2010u/s 18 of the L.A. Act addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. It is alsonot contested that vide possession certificate dated 21.05.2010, the firstrespondent handed over possession to the Deputy Commissioner andthat on 11.06.2010 possession of the land was ultimately handed over tothe appellant by the Deputy Commissioner. What clearly emerges fromH

the above is that after the letter dated 05.03.2010, it was the commonbelief of the State Government, the appellant as well as the first respondentthat the award had been approved and that now actions subsequentthereto viz. payment and receipt of compensation, handover of possession,seeking reassessment of the compensation were needed to beundertaken.

16. It is clear from the materials on record that the plastic projectfor which the subject Land Acquisition was initiated has already beendeveloped on the acquired land including boundary wall, entrance gate,laying of roads, drains and electrical distribution networks, electricalsubstation, industrial sheds and warehouses.

17. In the above scenario, the arguments of the first respondentare untenable. Once the award has been approved, compensation hasbeen paid thereunder and possession of the land has been handed overto the Government, acquisition proceedings could not have beenreopened, including by way of re-notification of the already acquiredland under Section 4 of the L.A. Act by the Government. Contrary tothe first respondent’s contention, the question of lapsing under Section24 of the L.A. Act could not have arisen in this case once the awardwas approved on 05.03.2010.

18. So far as the second set of acquisition proceedings areconcerned, without addressing the factual veracity of the StateGovernment’s contention that the second award was meant to be only inrespect of landowners not covered by the original award, we are of theopinion that it would not have been possible for the State Government toinitiate acquisition proceedings in respect of already acquired land suchas that of the first respondent herein. This position has been affirmed bythis Court in D. Hanumanth SA & Ors. v. State of Karnataka andOrs.[1] in the following terms:

“17. Even otherwise, if land already stands acquired by theGovernment and if the same stands vested in the Governmentthere is no question of acquisition of such a land by issuing asecond notification for the Government cannot acquire itsown land. The same is by now settled by various decision ofthis Court in a catena of cases.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A18. In State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma,[2] this Court hasheld that the Land Acquisition Act does not contemplate orprovide for the acquisition of any interest belonging to theGovernment in the land on acquisition This position wasreiterated in a subsequent decision of this Court in MeherRusi Dalal v. Union of India[3] in paras 15 and 16 of the saidBjudgment, this Court has held that the High Court clearlyerred in setting aside the order of the Special Land AcquisitionOfficer declining a reference since it is settled law that inland acquisition proceedings the Government cannot and doesnot acquire its own interest. While laying down the aforesaidClaw, this Court has referred to its earlier decision in Collectorof Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri[4]"

The recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court inIndore Development Authorityv. Manoharlal and Ors.[5] has alsoaffirmed that once possession is taken by the State, the land vestsDabsolutely with the State and the title of the landowner ceases. We findno reason to deviate from this settled position of law and thus are unableto agree with the High Court’s reliance on the letters dated 21.07.2012and 06.01.2014 to nullify the original award and allow fresh acquisitionproceedings in respect of the first respondent’s land which had alreadybeen acquired and has been under the possession of the appellant sinceE11.06.2010.

19. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appeals succeedand are accordingly allowed. The orders impugned herein are set aside.Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. The parties shallbear their own costs.

F

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals allowed.

G

2 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249.

3 (2004) 7 SCC 362.

4 AIR 1955 SC 298 : (1955) 1 SCR 1311.

H5 (2020) 8 SCC 129.