Full Judgment Text
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 19.01.2023
Judgment delivered on: 07.02.2023
+ W.P.(C) 4247/2017
DHARAMVIR UDAR AND ORS.
.......Petitioners
Through: Ms.Smita Mann, Advocate.
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SW) AND ORS.
…... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sunil
Kumar Jha, Mr.M.S. Akhtar, Ms.Rini
V. Tigga, Ms.K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Advocates for R-1/LAC.
Ms.Shobhana Takiar, SC with Mr.K.
Singh, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
1. A Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 09.02.2017 passed by
the Land Acquisition Collector, South West/Respondent No.1 whereby the
Reference Petition filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was rejected as time barred. Consequently, it is
further prayed for issuing appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the
nature of mandamus, directing the Land Acquisition Collector, South West
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 1 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
to refer the Reference Petition filed by the petitioners on 08.09.2015 under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the concerned Civil Court
for adjudication, in accordance with law.
2. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, they are the recorded co-
owners of large chunk of land comprising Khasra No.59/1 (4-08), 2/1 min.
(2-16), 9 min (4-12), 10 (4-16), 11 (4-04), 12 (3-00) and 59/9 min. (0-04)
total admeasuring 24 bighas situated in the revenue estate of Village Dhool
rd
Siras, New Delhi wherein the petitioners are having 1/3 share each
respectively being the LRs of Shri Gyani Ram. In the above-mentioned land,
the petitioners claim to have developed a farm house with compound wall,
kothi, two temples, shed, platform, tubewell and main gate in the land of
Khasra No.59/9 min. (0-04) and 10.
3. It is further the case of the petitioners that on 13.12.2000, the Govt. of
NCT of Delhi issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) in respect of total land measuring
3133 bighas 17 biswas situated in revenue estate of Dhool Siras which
included the land of the petitioners. Further, on 07.12.2001, the declaration
under Section 6 of the said Act was issued followed with notification under
section 17(1) on 15.03.2002. The possession of a portion of land
admeasuring 23 bighas and 16 biswas was taken on 20.08.2002 after
invoking the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. However, the
possession of Khasra No.59/9 min. (0-04) was not taken by respondent No.1
due to existence of structure/construction in the nature of build up house etc.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 2 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
Thereafter, an award No.27/2002-03 was passed by respondent
No.1/Land Acquisition Collector on 24.10.2002. The compensation in
respect of the tubewell and other structure over the acquired land was not
assessed/determined by the LAC since the valuation report was yet to be
submitted by the PWD. Accordingly, it was observed in the aforesaid award
that the compensation for the same would be assessed/determined later on.
4. The possession of Khasra No.59/9 min (0-04) is stated to have been
taken by the respondents only on 29.11.2005. Further, in accordance with the
directions, the PWD submitted the valuation report in respect of all the
structures and a Supplementary Award No.27A/2007-08 was passed by the
LAC on 05.12.2008 which included the compensation in respect of tubewell,
pump house and boring of the petitioners for a sum of Rs.1,56,516/-.
The grievance of the petitioners is that despite receipt of the valuation
report from PWD in respect of other structures i.e. farm house, building, wall
gate etc., the LAC did not award any compensation qua the same and neither
included in the Supplementary Award. Consequently, a request was made
by the petitioners to the LAC to pass another award over the left over
structures on 18.01.2013 in writing. However, no action was taken
thereupon by the LAC. Left with no other option, the petitioners approached
the High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition {WP(C) No.3037/2013}
which was disposed of vide order dated 10.05.2013 directing the LAC to
examine the claim of the petitioners in the light of the valuation report and
pass an appropriate order on the application dated 18.01.2013 filed by the
petitioners within a period of four weeks.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 3 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
5. Petitioners further claim that the LAC/respondent No.1 failed to
comply with the directions issued by High Court of Delhi in WP(C)
No.3037/2013 vide order dated 10.05.2013 and as such they were again
constrained to approach the High Court by filing a Contempt Petition, which
was later on withdrawn by the petitioners on 19.01.2015 on passing of an
order on 17.01.2015 by the LAC. The LAC recorded that Supplementary
Award regarding compensation for building (kothi), two temples, shed,
compound wall, platform and main gate falling in Khasra No.59/9 would be
passed later on. The petitioners, after withdrawing the contempt petition
visited the office of LAC/respondent No.1 repeatedly for passing the
Supplementary Award.
LAC finally passed an order dated 07.08.2015 and partly accepted the
valuation report given by PWD by awarding compensation in respect of
building (kothi) in the valuation report. However, he did not award any
compensation in respect of other structures mentioned at serial no. 5 to 10 of
the valuation report and no reasons were given for discarding the claim of
the petitioners.
Petitioners claim that the said order is to be treated as an award for all
objects and purposes though nomenclatured as an order.
6. It is further the case of the petitioners that on 08.09.2015, a Reference
Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was preferred before
the LAC/respondent No.1 for forwarding of the same to the concerned Civil
Court for adjudication. The said petition is claimed to be within the period
of limitation envisaged under Section 18 from the passing of order by the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 4 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
LAC on 07.08.2015. However, the Reference under Section 18 of the said
Act was declined to be forwarded by the LAC for adjudication by the Civil
Court vide order dated 09.02.2017.
7. The Writ Petition has been opposed on behalf of the respondents and
in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1/LAC, it is
submitted that vast tract of land admeasuring 3133 bighas 17 biswas
including the land of the petitioners situated in revenue estate of Village
Dhool Siras was notified for acquisition of Dwarka Project 2 vide
notification dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. This was followed by declaration under Section 6 on 07.12.2001.
An award No.27/2002-03 was made on 24.10.2002 and possession of land
was taken on 20.08.2002. However, possession of Khasra No.59/9 (0-04)
was not taken due to built-up house. The compensation of the said land was
paid on 15.11.2002 and rest of the compensation was paid on 31.12.2005
after taking possession of Khasra No.59/9 (0-04) on 29.11.2005. It is further
rd
submitted that as per LAC record in proportion to their respective 1/3 share,
petitioner Dharamvir was paid Rs.34,80,708/- vide cheque dated 15.11.2002
and Rs.29,244/- vide cheque dated 31.12.2005; petitioner Dalvir Singh was
paid Rs.34,80,709/- vide cheque dated 15.11.2002 and Rs.29,244/- vide
cheque dated 31.12.2005 and petitioner Karanvir was paid Rs.34,80,709/-
vide cheque dated 15.11.2002 and Rs.29,244/- vide cheque dated
31.12.2005.
It is also stated that at the time of announcement of award no.27/2002-
03 dated 24.10.2002, the valuation of structures and tube-wells was not taken
up since the valuation report was not received from the Public Works
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 5 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
Department (PWD). After receiving the valuation report from PWD, a
Supplementary Award No.27A/2007-08 was made on 05.12.2008 and an
amount of Rs.1,56,616/- was awarded as compensation as reflected at serial
no.58 of the Supplementary Award.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed WP(C) No.3037/2013 raising the
grievance that despite the valuation report mentioning the existence of
building, (kothi), two temples, shed, compound wall, platform and main gate
falling in Khasra No.59/9, 10, no award was made for the same. Further, in
compliance to directions passed by the High Court vide order dated
10.05.2013 in WP(C) 3037/2013, the petitioners were requested vide letter
dated 02.12.2014 and 23.12.2014 to supply documents. The LAC/ADM
examined the claim of the petitioners on the basis of documents supplied by
the petitioners and passed an order dated 17.01.2015. It is submitted that the
petitioners did not submit certified copies of the permissions by SDM/RA in
respect of two temples, sheds, compound wall, platform and main gate and
as such the petitioners were not entitled for compensation for the above
items. The petitioners were held entitled for compensation for building
(kothi) amounting to Rs.3,38,836/- as assessed in the valuation report by
PWD.
It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioners to
refer the Reference Petition to the court of Additional District Judge did not
fall within the norms/law laid down in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 and is barred by limitation. Additionally, it is stated that the order
dated 07.08.2015 passed by ADM/LAC/South West is not an award but an
order, against which the Reference could not be preferred under Section 18.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 6 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
It is also pointed out that the original award had been passed on 24.10.2002
and the Supplementary Award was made on 05.12.2008 and as such the
Reference could have been preferred within six months from 05.12.2008,
since no notice was issued to the petitioners under Section 12(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act nor were they served or were present at the time of passing
of the award or Supplementary Award. The award dated 24.10.2002 is
stated to be a complete award. The petitioners are further stated to be aware
of both the original award and Supplementary Award way back in the years
2002-03 and 2008-09 but failed to file the Reference before the expiry of six
months from the date of the award. The filing of the Reference after a lapse
of 13 years of the award is claimed to be barred. Reliance was further placed
upon the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohanji and Anr.
Vs. State of UP and Ors. JT 1995 (8) SC 599 as well as State of Punjab
and Ors. Vs. Sharanpal Singh & Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 683 .
8. In nutshell, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that order
dated 07.08.2015 passed by the LAC is to be treated as Supplementary
Award against which the Reference under Section 18 had been filed within
the period of limitation. It is further submitted that the initial award No.
27/2002-03 was only limited in respect of the land and even as per the stand
of the respondent, the Supplementary Award based upon the valuation report
from PWD bearing No.27A/2007-08 was passed but did not consider the
valuation of all the structures as made by the PWD. It is urged that having
made a Supplementary Award No.27A/2007-08, it does not lie in the mouth
of the respondents now to say that further Supplementary Award cannot be
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 7 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
passed by the LAC. Reliance is further placed upon Purshotam Behl & Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors. 275 (2020) Delhi Law Times 16 (DB) .
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the
Reference is clearly barred by limitation under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and the order passed by LAC on 07.08.2015 awarding
compensation for the built up kothi on the acquired land pursuant to
directions made by the High Court in WP(C) No.3037/2013 cannot be
deemed to be Supplementary Award.
9. In view of above, the issue for determination is, whether the order
dated 07.08.2015 passed by the LAC is deemed to be a supplementary award
and consequently if the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 is within limitation.
10. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsels, it
may be noticed that in Purshotam Behl (supra) the challenge in the petition
by different owners of land measuring 13.89 acres in revenue estate of
Village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri was with reference to notification of
intention of acquisition under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956
(in short “the NH Act” issued on 12.01.2018 and determination dated
16.01.2019 under Section 3G of the NH Act, calling upon the petitioners to
deliver possession of the land within sixty days, failing which physical
possession was threatened to be taken with the assistance of police force. It
was therein contended that the determination under Section 3G of the NH
Act was not final determination as required under the said Act, since the
determination was for land only and with respect to determination of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 8 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
claim of the petitioners for structures over the said land, another
determination was to be done. As such, it was urged that till there is final
determination of claim of the petitioners both for land and structures and till
the amount so determined is deposited, possession of the land under Section
3E of the NH Act could not be taken.
Para 47 of the said judgment notices that both the NH Act and Land
Acquisition Act define „land‟ as inclusive of things attached to the earth and
permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and which words in
various judgments passed by the Apex Court have been held to include
super-structure, trees, standing crops etc. Accordingly, it was held that
determination of compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act
has to necessarily include determination of compensation for structures,
trees, standing crop existing on the land on the date of the acquisition and
observations in this regard may be beneficially reproduced:-
“…… However we prefer to hold that the determination of valuation of
superstructure, trees, standing crop on the land acquired is under Section
3G, not only owing to the similarity in language in this respect in the NH
Act to the Land Acquisition Act and the law as has developed under the
Land Acquisition Act but also because, to hold otherwise would amount to
the State compulsorily appropriating valuable property of its citizen without
valuing the same fully and without depositing any compensation therefor,
leaving the citizen in lurch, and which interpretation has to
be outrightly discarded. The same would also be contrary to the scheme of
the NH Act, which though divests the citizen of title to the land even before
the same has been valued and the valuation determined deposited but
protects the possession of the citizen till such valuation and deposit; there is
no reason to differentiate between land and things permanently attached to
the land, in this respect.
Thereafter, the Court examined whether the law requires all
components of compensation to be contained in one single document or there
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 9 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
is a bar to more than one award and made observations in para 52 to 54,
which are pertinent to be noticed and may be beneficially reproduced:-
“52. We will first take up the question, whether the law requires all
components of compensation to be contained in one single document. In
this regard, we find a Full Bench of the High Court of Bombay, as far back
as in Prag Narain v. The Collector of Agra, MANU/MH/0016/1932, faced
with an award for part only of a single block of land, to have held that the
Land Acquisition Act did not appear to contemplate that where more than
one person is interested in a parcel of land, there should be more than one
award relating thereto; however this does not mean that the whole of the
land at any one time to be acquired, must necessarily be dealt with in one
award; it only means that any one piece of land in which more than one
person has an interest for which he can claim compensation, ought not to
be made the subject of more than one award; each award should contain
within its four corners, the fixing of the value of the land with which it
deals. We find a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat, thereafter
in Mohamadsarif Hakimji Chippa v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1967 Guj 269,
in the context of Land Acquisition Act, to have held that the legislative
intent is that in respect of land under acquisition, all matters referred to in
Section 11 between all persons interested, must be decided by one award;
to construe them otherwise may lead to anomaly; if the Collector were to
have authority to decide the same matters between the same parties more
than once, it may happen that he may come to one decision in respect of
some piece of land acquired, and another decision subsequently; on all
matters concerned under Section 11 between all the parties interested, one
award has to be filed and which assumes finality; however the concept of
one award does not necessarily imply that it should be contained in a
single document; the said decision of the Collector, under given
exceptional circumstances, may be contained in more than one document,
so long as one or more documents constitute one compendious decision of
the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector; the mere fact that it is
contained in more than one document would not amount to two or more
separate awards. This Court, in Lal Singh v. Lt. Governor,
Delhi, MANU/DE/0221/1971 also held that the language used in the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act suggests that the land covered by a
notification under Section 6 has to be dealt with as a whole, without being
split up and the compensation amount has to be apportioned in the award
under Section 11 amongst all the persons known or believed to be
interested in the land; there may however be more than one award in
exceptional circumstances, provided the said awards are not inconsistent
decisions regarding the parcel of land, but constitute one decision in
respect of the parcel of land and all matters required to be considered
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 10 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
under Section 11 concerning all the persons interested in that parcel of
land. Thereafter, this Court in Amar Nath supra relied upon by the Senior
Counsel for NHAI, held that no fault could be found with a Supplementary
Award with respect to some of the matters as the award already stood
announced and the Supplementary Award submerged itself into the main
award, it being only its part. We also find that a Full Bench of the High
Court of Gujarat, headed by Chief Justice B.N. Kirpal,
in Kanchanbhai Jhaverbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat, MANU/GJ/0211
/1994, dealing with a writ petition with the grievance that in the award
made and pursuant to which possession had been taken, no compensation
had been determined with respect to standing crop and claiming direction
for determination and payment of compensation for standing crop, to have
held that in respect of the same parcel of land only one award is
contemplated and no Supplementary Award is contemplated and the
remedy is by way of seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
53. That brings us to Mohanji supra cited by the Counsels for the
petitioners as well as the Counsels for the respondents. The said judgment
came in the wake of amendment to the Land Acquisition Act which
required an award to be made in all pending cases of land acquisition
within a period of two years from the insertion of Section 11A and it
further provided that all proceedings for acquisition of land in which no
award is made within the specified period, would lapse on expiry of that
period. The said period of two years expired on 23rd September, 1986.
Supreme Court in the said judgment was concerned with an award made
on the last date i.e. 23rd September, 1986 but only in respect of vacant
land but not for buildings constructed over a portion thereof. It was the
contention of the petitioners that since the part award was no award, the
acquisition proceedings lapsed. It was held that it could not be said that no
award had been made for the land acquired, because admittedly award
had been made for the entire land acquired and since no piecemeal award
by making a subsequent award after the expiry of the period of two years
was contemplated in law, the award dated 23rd September, 1986 must be
considered as the whole award made under Section 11, awarding
compensation for the entire area of land with no compensation awarded
for the building. It was further held that it was open to the petitioners to
seek reference, if dissatisfied with the award. The said judgment was also
followed in Sharan Pal Singh (supra). Supreme Court, thereafter
in Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons Ltd. v. Union of
India, MANU/SC/1393/2002 was concerned with an award for land only,
recording that with respect to superstructures, there will be a separate
valuation; however without making the said separate valuation, possession
of the land was sought to be taken. The three Judge Bench was constituted
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 11 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
on a doubt being expressed with respect to the correctness
of Mohanji and Sharan Pal Singh supra. However the matter was disposed
of, directing compensation as claimed, for the superstructures, to be paid
with interest for the delay. Mention may lastly be made of a dicta of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati in Fortuna Agro Plantation
Ltd. v. Union of India, MANU/GH/0394/2011. It was held that an award
even if made by ignoring some of the factors which in the light of Section
23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are required to be taken into account, is
still an award rendered under Section 11 and the person aggrieved by
such an award has the remedy of applying to the Collector to make a
reference in terms of Section 18.
54. Thus the law with respect to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
is, that only one award is envisaged and even if is not with respect to one
of the factors to be taken into consideration, the award made is to be
deemed to be denying any compensation therefor and the only remedy is of
seeking reference under Section 18. One award only has been advocated,
only to avoid inconsistencies in determination of valuation of different
parcels of land vide the same notification. For this reason it has been held
that even where there are more than one award, inconsistencies should be
avoided. There is no absolute bar to more than one award.”
It is pertinent to observe that the aforesaid observations take note of
the judgment passed in Mohanji (Supra) as well as Sharanpal Singh
(supra) and reference has also been made to Harbans Lal Malhotra and
Sons Ltd. vs. Union of India , MANU/SC/1393/2002 since the three Judge
Bench was constituted on a doubt being expressed with regard to the
correctness of Mohanji and Sharanpal Singh (supra).
11. It may further be noticed that in Mohanji and Anr. Vs. State of UP
and Ors. (supra,) the question for consideration was whether no award had
been made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act in the proceedings
to result in lapse of the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land since
the determination of compensation for the building in addition to the
compensation awarded for the entire land was made on a subsequent date
after the expiry of the specified period of two years under Section 11A of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 12 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
Land Acquisition Act. It was held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in para 5 that
since compensation had been determined in the award so made for the entire
area of 0.99 acres and since no piecemeal award by making a subsequent
award after the expiry of the period of two years is contemplated in law, the
award dated 23.09.1986 must be construed as the whole award made under
Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act awarding compensation for the entire
area of 0.99 acres with no compensation awarded for the building. It was
held that the appellants, therefore, had the right to claim compensation for
the building by seeking a Reference under Section 18 of the Act treating the
award as one in which compensation had been determined and awarded only
for the entire land measuring 0.99 acres but no compensation was awarded
for the building therein. In view of above, the contention that the entire
proceedings for acquisition of land had lapsed by virtue of section 11A was
not accepted.
12. In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Sharanpal Singh & Ors. (supra) , it
was contended before the High Court that the award was not in conformity
with Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act inasmuch as the award
determined the compensation for the land only and the amount of
compensation regarding the superstructure and trees standing on such land
was left to be decided separately.
Setting aside the orders passed by the High Court and relying upon
Mohanji Vs. State of UP (supra) , it was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
that the ratio in Mohanji Vs. State of UP (supra) squarely applied to the
facts of the case and the impugned award dated 25.03.1985 within the period
specified in Section 11A must be construed as an award under Section 11 in
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 13 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
the proceedings for the acquisition of the land in question and the
contentions to the contrary cannot be sustained. However, the Court left
open the rights of the respondents to claim compensation for the
building/trees in accordance with law treating the award already made as one
not awarding any compensation for the building/trees.
13. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it may be observed that
award no.27/2002-03 in terms of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was
passed in respect of the entire land except for the structures and tube-wells
etc. for which the Supplementary Award No.27/2007-08 dated 05.12.2008
has been passed. Admittedly, the Supplementary Award only considered the
valuation for the tube-wells for Rs.1,56,516/- and did not award any
compensation for the remaining structures. As such, having itself passed a
Supplementary Award, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to
contend that no Supplementary Award can be passed for valuation of the
remaining structures in respect of which the valuation had been made by
PWD but were not considered by the LAC, in the light of observations made
in Purshotam Behl & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) .
However, the matter needs to be further considered in view of the fact
that instead of preferring a Reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act in respect of the compensation assessed by the LAC in the
Supplementary Award No.27A/2007-08 dated 05.12.2008, the petitioners
preferred a Writ Petition No.3037/2013 for directing the respondent LAC for
consideration of the application dated 18.01.2013 filed before the
ADM/LAC/South West for the structures raised on the acquired land. The
said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.05.2013 directing the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 14 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
LAC to pass an appropriate order on application dated 18.01.2013 on which
the orders were finally passed by the LAC on 07.08.2015.
The petitioners in terms of aforesaid order, have been thereafter held
to be entitled for sum of Rs.3,38,836/- in respect of building/kothi then
existing on the acquired land belonging to the petitioners along with solatium
under Section 23(2) and interest. However, the claim in respect of two
temples, sheds, compound wall, platform and main gate has been rejected
since the petitioners failed to submit the requisite permissions from the
competent authority.
We are of the considered view that after passing of Supplementary
Award No.27A/2007-08 dated 05.12.2008, in case the petitioners were still
aggrieved regarding non-compensation in respect of the structures existing
on the acquired land, they were required to file Reference under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, for the reasons best known,
petitioners preferred a representation before LAC followed by Writ Petition
before the High Court. In the light of the settled position of law and as
envisaged under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, law
contemplates only passing of one Award in respect of the same parcel of
land and no Supplementary Award is contemplated. In case of any grievance
regarding non determination of compensation regarding any structure, crops
etc., the remedy is only by way of seeking Reference under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act within the period of limitation prescribed therein. In
view of above, the order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the LAC pursuant to
directions of the High Court in WP(C) 3037/2013 cannot be treated as a
Supplementary Award. In case the aforesaid order dated 07.08.2015 passed
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 15 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000428
by the LAC pursuant to directions passed in WP(C) No.3037/2013 is treated
as a Supplementary Award, the same would not only be contrary to the
provisions of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act but also result in an
unending process wherein separate Supplementary Awards in respect of the
same parcel of land would continue to be passed. The aforesaid
determination of compensation vide order dated 07.08.2015 by the LAC for
the kothi is only an equitable relief since the State cannot divest citizens of
valuable property without valuing the same fully and depositing the
compensation.
Since the petitioners failed to file any Reference against the original
award dated 24.10.2002 and Supplementary Award dated 05.12.2008 within
the stipulated period, the Reference Petition preferred by the petitioners
based upon order dated 07.08.2015 is clearly barred by limitation prescribed
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. For the foregoing
reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the stand taken by the LAC in this
regard.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
(V. KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 07, 2023 /sd
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No.4247/2017 Page 16 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:07.02.2023
16:33:55