Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2023 INSC 713
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7791-7796 OF 2013
KALUBHAI KHATUBHAI ETC. ETC. …APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. These appeals, by special leave, are at the instance of
affected landowners. Their lands were acquired for the
Vadodara Branch Canal of Narmada Project (hereafter “the
project”, for short). Exception is taken by the appellants
th
to the common judgment and order dated 28 March,
2012 passed by a learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court
whereby six appeals (First Appeal Nos.4383 to 4388 of
2008) carried by the State of Gujarat and two of its officers
under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereafter “the Act”, for short) from a judgment and award
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Khajuria
Date: 2023.08.16
12:13:02 IST
Reason:
th
dated 10 May, 2007 of the Reference Court were allowed.
As a consequence, the award under section 11 of the Act
1
stood restored and compensation for the acquired lands as
awarded by the Reference Court to the appellants stood
reduced by exactly half.
2. It is not in dispute that lands comprised, inter alia , in
villages Morlipura, Kumetha and Nimeta of Waghodia
taluka, district Vadodara were acquired for the project
commencing with notifications issued under section 4 of
the Act on diverse dates. The hiatus between issuance of
the section 4 notifications for villages Morlipura and
Kumetha was not too substantial. Whereas the lands of
the appellants situated in village Morlipura were acquired
th
pursuant to section 4 notification dated 26 June, 1986
giving rise to L.A.Q. Case No. 86 of 1985, the process for
acquisition of lands in village Kumetha was triggered by a
th
notification dated 16 January, 1986 which, in turn, gave
rise to L.A.Q. Case No. 85 of 1985. However, the date of
the section 4 notification for acquisition lands in village
th
Nimeta happens to be 18 June, 1981, which led to L.A.Q.
Case No. Nimeta/81 being registered.
3. Insofar as the lands of the appellants are concerned,
th
award dated 26 November, 1987 was made by the Land
Acquisition Officer (hereafter “LAO”, for short). In
awarding compensation payable to the appellants, the LAO
calculated the market value of their lands @ Rs.19,000/-
2
per hectare (i.e., Rs.1.90 per square meter). Reference
having been sought by the appellants under section 18 of
the Act, Land Reference Case Nos. 120 to 122 and 125 to
127 of 1991 were registered. The Reference Court by its
th
judgment and award dated 10 May, 2007 enhanced the
amount of compensation by returning a finding that
market value of the land should have been reckoned as
Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare (i.e., Rs.40/- per square
meter). In so determining, the Reference Court relied on
th
the award of the Reference Court dated 18 August, 2004
in Reference Case Nos. 499 to 550 of 1990 (Ext.29).
Incidentally, there the section 4 notification was issued on
th
20 August, 1986 and the lands sought to be acquired
were comprised in village Dumad. Also, the purpose of
acquisition was different, viz. for construction of highway
and not for the project. Aggrieved by the determination
made by the Reference Court, the State carried the same
in appeals before the High Court which succeeded as noted
above.
4. While reducing compensation payable to the appellants,
the learned Judge of the High Court observed that the
Reference Court was not justified in placing reliance on
Ext. 29. Also, His Lordship had taken note of a Bench
th
decision dated 4 August, 2005 of the same High Court in
3
First Appeal Nos. 2151 to 2168 of 2005 (arising out of
Reference Case Nos. 165 to 182 of 1983) where, while
considering compensation to be paid to the affected
owners of lands comprised in village Nimeta, the Bench
had substituted determination of market value of the
acquired lands @ Rs.10/- per square meter by Rs.7/- per
square meter.
5. The High Court was right in its interference with the order
of the Reference Court while holding that acquisition of
lands in village Dumad (which were not acquired for the
project) could not be a guiding factor for determining
compensation. However, at the same time, the learned
Judge of the High Court fell in error in reducing the
compensation payable to the appellants based on
compensation awarded in respect of lands comprised in
village Nimeta. In our considered view, the lands
comprised in village Nimeta having been acquired in
th
pursuance of a section 4 notification dated 18 June,
1981, which was at least 5 years prior to the acquisition
th
by notification dated 26 June, 1986, such prior
acquisition and compensation paid to the landowners
affected by the same acquisition could not have served as
a guiding factor for the High Court to determine
compensation payable to the appellants.
4
6. We, thus, hold that both the Reference Court as well as
the Appellate Court committed errors in determining fair
and just compensation payable to the appellants. We
would have embarked on our task of such determination
based on the materials on record, instead of ordering a
remand having regard to the lapse of time since
acquisition was made; however, such task is cut short
because of a development, which has its own significance,
nd
post grant of leave to appeal by this Court on 2
September, 2013. It has been brought to our notice that
other affected landowners of village Morlipura had sought
for reference under section 18 of the Act after their lands
were acquired for the project giving rise to Reference Case
Nos.123-124 of 1991 (renumbered as Reference Case
Nos.61-62 of 2017). Their lands were also covered by
L.A.Q. Case No. 86 of 1985. The Reference Court allowed
st
the reference by its judgment and award dated 21 March,
2018 and determined market value of the acquired lands
@ Rs,4,00,000/- per hectare, being the identical
determination made by the Reference Court vide
th
judgment and award dated 10 May, 2007 in case of the
appellants, since reduced by the High Court by the
th
impugned judgment and order dated 28 March, 2012.
What appeared to us to be significant was the submission
5
of learned counsel for the appellants that the State of
st
Gujarat had accepted the judgment and award dated 21
March, 2018 without carrying the same in appeal and that
it also disbursed the amount of compensation payable to
the affected landowner (claimants before the Reference
Court) in terms thereof.
7. For the purpose of confirmation of the aforesaid
submission, we had requested learned counsel for the
respondents to verify and report. She has placed on record
th
a communication dated 10 August, 2023 received by her
from the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada
Project), Vadodara. A perusal thereof reveals that the
st
judgment and award dated 21 March, 2018 of the
Reference Court has, in fact, been accepted and the
additional amount which was awarded has been deposited
th
in court on 28 January, 2019.
8. In the light of such confirmation, we are of the view that
the appellants cannot be worse off than the other affected
landowners of the same village, i.e., Morlipura, who have
been paid more compensation. In a welfare state like ours
where we have promised all the citizens social and
economic justice, it would be fair and just if the appellants
are meted equal treatment as the other affected
6
landowners (claimants in Reference Case Nos.61-62 of
2017).
9. For the reason aforesaid, we set aside the impugned
th
judgment and order dated 28 March, 2012 of the High
Court and restore the judgment and award of the
th
Reference Court dated 10 May, 2007. Whatever amounts
the appellants are entitled to in terms of the Reference
Court’s judgment and award, minus the amounts so far
received, shall be released with simple interest @ 5% per
th
annum from 10 May, 2007, as early as possible but
positively within ninety days of receipt of an authenticated
copy of this judgment and order.
10. The appeals are accordingly allowed, without any order
for costs.
………..…………………J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
..…..………….…………J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
NEW DELHI;
TH
16 AUGUST, 2023.
7