Land Acquisition – Claim for compensation – Whether after the abolition of jagirs by virtue of the Abolition Act, 1953, the Respondent-Jagirdar or his legal representatives could have claimed the compensation on the land acquisition being made, particularly when land vested in the State, the land was not under the personal cultivation, and when they have received the compensation under the Abolition Act, and apart from that had also received the compensation under the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1972 – Held: It was conclusively established that land in question had been declared surplus and compensation under the Ceiling Act had also been received, even though the land had already vested in the State under the Abolition Act – Once the disputed land had been admittedly declared surplus in Ceiling Act, there was no question of payment of compensation to Respondent or his legal representatives in proceedings initiated later on under the LA Act – In instant case, there were earlier proceedings which makes it clear that respondent was not entitled to claim compensation under the LA Act – There was no subsisting right, title or interest left with respondent or his LRs, thus, they could not be permitted to obtain compensation – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.18 and 30 – Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 – s.27 – H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – s.11. Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of law – Respondent received compensation three times with respect to the same land – Firstly, in 1966-67 he had received a sum of Rs.28,019 as compensation due to the vesting of entire land in the State Government and compensation was determined under the Abolition Act – Second time the compensation of Rs.57,388/- had been received in the year 1980-81 under the Ceiling Act, 1972 – For third time, the respondent received compensation under LA Act – Appellant contended respondent had committed a serious fraud – Held: The amount that had been withdrawn under the LA Act, was wholly impermissible and tantamount to playing fraud upon the legal system – As a matter of fact, compensation was taken for the land in the proceedings under the Abolition Act – Even if compensation in respect of certain land was not payable or paid, vesting would not depend upon the same – Land not under personal cultivation of Jagirdars had vested in the State, as such it was not open even to obtain compensation for the very same land either under the provisions of the Ceiling Act which has been received or under the provisions of the LA Act – It was wholly impermissible and illegal and tantamount to scam committed by fraudster – Respondent directed to refund the compensation withdrawn under land acquisition to the appellant-State – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.18 and 30 – Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 – s.27 – H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – s.11.
Word and Phrases – “Fraud” – Held: Fraud vitiates every solemn proceeding and no right can be claimed by a fraudster on the ground of technicalities.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The area under personal cultivation which was saved in favour of respondent was 64 bighas 12 Biswas only as specified. It is apparent from the order Khata No.1 Kita measuring 1011 bighas 6 Biswas vested in the ownership of Government of Himachal Pradesh in village Jhakri. The land revenue of land at Jakhri as apparent from Jamabandi of 1955-56 at the time when the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 came into force was Rs.155.58 it was more than Rs.125 as such the land which was Banjar kadim or otherwise not under personal cultivation had vested in the State. Under the Abolition Act compensation was determined under the provisions of section 27(1) and was ordered to be paid by the Compensation Officer. Though payment of compensation was not a condition precedent for vesting of land it was automatic, respondent was paid compensation also for the land mentioned in the order of Compensation Officer. Even if the compensation was not paid for some land, as that was not under personal cultivation had also automatically vested free from all encumbrances in the State. [Paras 44, 45] [303-D-H; 304-A]
Jadab Singh & Ors. v. The Himachal Pradesh
Administration & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 1008 – referred to.
2. The fact is conclusively established that land in question had been declared as surplus and compensation under the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 had also been received, even though the land had already vested in the State under the Abolition Act. Once the disputed land had been admittedly declared surplus in Ceiling Act, there was no question of payment of compensation to repsondent or to his legal representatives in proceedings initiated later on in the year 1987 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector in 1989 was justified in directing that the compensation determined should not be paid due to the effect of the Ceiling Act and that question was raised in the Reference Court also, it was incumbent upon the Reference Court to go into the aforesaid aspects. Thus, once land has been declared surplus and compensation has been received. It was not open to receive it again in the land acquisition case. [Para 54] [309-D-G]
3. The Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1987 for the acquisition of land whereas the order of ceiling was passed earlier in 1980 and 1985 and subsequently the surplus area was increased in 1993. By no stretch of any principle of law, respondent or his successors could have claimed compensation in the proceedings in question initiated under the LA Act in the year 1987. The respondent and his family were not entitled to claim any monetary compensation under the LA Act for the said land. The amount that had been withdrawn under the LA Act, was wholly impermissible and tantamount to playing fraud upon the legal system. As a matter of fact, compensation has been taken for the land in the proceedings under the Abolition Act. Even if compensation in respect of certain land was not payable or paid, vesting would not depend upon the same. Land not under personal cultivation of Jagirdars had vested in the State, as such it was not open even to obtain compensation for the very same land either under the provisions of the Ceiling Act which has been received or under the provisions of the LA Act. It was wholly impermissible and illegal and tantamount to scam committed by fraudsters. The cases were withdrawn one after the other just to perpetuate the fraud on the legal system by raising the inconsistent pleas and taking unfair and undue advantage of the wrong continuation of entries in the revenue papers. Resultantly, respondent or LRs shall refund the compensation withdrawn in the case of land acquisition to the appellant/State. [Paras 59 and 78] [312-E-G; 313-A; 326-F-G]
Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (2002) 3 SCC 705 : [2002]
2 SCR 404; Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India (2004)
7 SCC 362 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 956; Ahad Brothers v. State of M.P. (2005) 1 SCC 545 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 191 ; U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (1995) 2 SCC 326 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 646; Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (2003) 3 SCC 128; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 543; Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 6 SCC 557; Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf (2006) 7 SCC
756 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 325; State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149: 2005]
1 Suppl. SCR 809; A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 : [2007] 3 SCR 603; S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 422; K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) 3 SCC 573 : [1998] 1 SCR 601; Ujjagar Singh v. Collector, Bhatinda (1996) 5 SCC 14 ; [1996]
4 Suppl. SCR 239; State of H.P. v. Harnama (2004) 13 SCC 534; Madan Kishore v. Major Sudhir Sewal
(2008) 8 SCC 744: [2008] 12 SCR 1154 – referred to.
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.