Land Acquisition:
Acquisition of land – Notifications u/ss. 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition 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 Form No. 5 respectively) – Approval granted by letter dated 05.03.2010 – Land-owner thereafter sought reference u/s. 18 of Land Acquisition Act for reassessment of compensation – The Land-owner also received the compensation and possession of the land was handedover on 21.05.2010 – The land-owner thereafter relying on letters that 21.07.2012 and 06.01.2014 contended that no award was approved by letter dated 05.03.2010 (thereby only land acquisition estimate was approved) and thus it led to lapsing of previous acquisition proceedings and initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings on 07.08.2012, culminating in approval of the award for the first time on 04.01.2014 – The landowner claimed fresh award by determining the compensation payable in terms of 2013 Act because the award under the fresh proceedings was made and approved after coming into force of 2013 Act – High Court allowed the case of the land-owner – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The facts of the case including conduct of the land-owner show that the award was approved on 05.03.2010 – Once the award had been approved, 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 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24 – Assam Land Acquisition Manual. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.It is uncontested that vide letter dated 30.01.2010 both the award and the land acquisition estimate were sent to the State Government for its approval. It is pertinent to note that the award was in the format of Form No. 15 which is the statutorily prescribed form for a land acquisition award under the Assam Land Acquisition Manual. This is also true of the land acquisition estimate which was as per the prescribed format of Form No. 5. As such, the only further action required of the State Government was to approve the award which was already in the statutorily prescribed form. This is precisely what was done vide the letter dated 05.03.2010 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department. [Para 13] [187-G-H; 188-A-B]
2. The letter dated 05.03.2010 was issued in response to the letter dated 30.01.2010, whereunder approval of the award and the land acquisition estimate was sought. While this letter only expressly mentions the land acquisition estimate and not the award, a combined reading of this letter with the preceding letter dated 30.01.2010 and the subsequent conduct of the parties, including the first respondent, make it evident that the award stood approved by letter dated 05.03.2010. Copies of both the letters of 30.01.2010 and 05.03.2010 were also addressed to the Industries & Commerce Department of the Government of Assam. Vide the initial letter of 30.01.2010, the said Department was requested to arrange balance funds for making payment to the land owners as per the award. In furtherance of this, vide the letter of 05.03.2010, the said Department was directed to place the balance estimated fund at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner. If the award which had been sent for approval alongwith the estimate had not been approved by the said letter dated 05.03.2010, this direction for making funds for payment to landowners available to the Deputy Commissioner would not have been called for. This view is fortified by the subsequent conduct of the parties. [Para 14][188-C-F]
3. It is undisputed that the award amount was indeed made available to the Deputy Commissioner and the awarded sum was duly paid to and received by the first respondent. Not only did the first respondent receive compensation pursuant to the award, it in fact sought enhancement of the same vide its reassessment petition dated 05.05.2010 u/s 18 of the L.A. Act addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. It is also not contested that vide possession certificate dated 21.05.2010, the first respondent handed over possession to the Deputy Commissioner and that on 11.06.2010 possession of the land was ultimately handed over to the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner. What clearly emerges from the above is that after the letter dated 05.03.2010, it was the common belief of the State Government, the appellant as well as the first respondent that the award had been approved and that now actions subsequent thereto viz. payment and receipt of compensation, handover of possession, seeking reassessment of the compensation were needed to be undertaken. [Para 15][188-F-H; 189-A-B]
4. Once the award has been approved, compensation has been paid thereunder and possession of the land has been handed over to the Government, acquisition proceedings could not have been reopened, including by way of re-notification of the already acquired land under Section 4 of the L.A. Act by the Government. The question of lapsing under Section 24 of the L.A. Act could not have arisen in this case once the award was approved on 05.03.2010. [Para 17][189-C-D]
D. Hanumanth SA & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 656 : [2010] 12 SCR 1098 – relied on.
5. Once possession is taken by the State, the land vests absolutely with the State and the title of the landowner ceases. High Court wrongly relied on the letters dated 21.07.2012 and 06.01.2014 to nullify the original award and allow fresh acquisition proceedings in respect of the first respondent’s land which had already been acquired and has been under the possession of the appellant 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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.