Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 86
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No………...of 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.7061 of 2025)
Niraj Jain
….Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority-cum-Additional
Collector, Jagdalpur & Ors.
….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. Whether the setting aside of an award of compensation for land
acquisition, on grounds of it being excessive and resulting in unjust
enrichment of some land owners, acting in collusion with the
competent authority and the revenue officials, who acted in
colourable exercise of powers would ipso facto result in the entire
award with respect to the acquisition being set aside is the question
arising in this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
3. Two sets of litigation arose with respect to the acquisition of
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.01.27
15:55:46 IST
Reason:
land in the State of Chhattisgarh for a Special Rail Project, notified on
Page 1 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
31.08.2017 from Rowghat-Jagdalpur (140 km) between Dallirajhara-
Jagdalpur (235 km).
4. After the award was passed, certain persons also approached
the Arbitrator constituted under the Land Acquisition (Special
1
Railway Projects) Rules, 2016 for the purpose of sub-section (6) of
Section 20-F of the Railways Act, 1989 in which an enhancement was
granted.
5. An inquiry was initiated, alleging excessive amounts having
been awarded far greater to the actual land value. Based on the
inquiry report of the Collector, an FIR was also registered against the
Competent Authority, the Arbitrator as also other revenue officials
and the persons who derived such unjust enrichment. The accused
in the said crime approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh with
separate writ petitions, challenging the inquiry report, the order of
freezing of their accounts and resisting the criminal case registered
against them. Bastar Railways Private Limited, a Joint Venture
Company through its Executive Director, filed a writ petition
impleading the State and its officers and party respondent Nos.6 to
10, land owners, who were alleged to be the beneficiaries of such
1
for short, the Rules of 2016
Page 2 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
colourable exercise of powers by the revenue authorities, carried on
in collusion with them. The said writ petition was allowed as is seen
from Annexure P-8, judgment dated 10.01.2022, setting aside the
award dated 12.02.2018 passed by the competent authority and the
arbitral award by the Commissioner, Jagdalpur dated 11.07.2019.
The judgment was a common judgment in the writ petitions filed by
the beneficiary land owners, the government officials and the
Railways. The Competent Authority was directed to recalculate the
compensation after considering the applicable circulars and
guidelines and also evaluating the factual matrix. The land
owners/petitioners were directed to refund the amount of
compensation received by them, subject to their entitlement and
quantum, being determined by the competent authority afresh. The
government officers were granted protection from coercive steps, on
condition of marking their presence before the Station House Officer,
Jagdalpur every month till the award is passed afresh. A batch of
appeals filed stood dismissed by Annexure P-11 order dated
28.06.2022.
6. While so, the appellant herein, another land owner in a
different village was also granted compensation by the award of the
Page 3 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
Competent Authority on 12.02.2018, however, the quantum not at the
extent it was granted to certain land owners, against whom the
respondent Railways had proceeded specifically before the High
Court. The appellant not being satisfied with the award approached
the Arbitrator who by an order dated 28.06.2019 allowed
enhancement. Immediately thereafter, noticing the inquiry report of
the Collector, by Annexure P-7 order dated 02.08.2019 the
determination of additional compensation, solatium & interest as also
its disbursement was kept in abeyance. The arbitral award and the
initial award were then set aside by Annexure P-9 order dated
21.02.2022 following Annexure P-8, the judgment dated 10.01.2022
of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The appellant was
before the High Court with a writ petition which stood dismissed from
which an appeal was filed, the order rejecting which, is impugned
herein.
7. We heard Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned Additional Solicitor
General, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Tushar
Mehta, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The appellant
asserts that there is neither identity of allegations nor is there any
Page 4 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
taint alleged, with respect to the award passed in favour of the
appellant herein, who was also not proceeded against by the
Railways. Based on the inquiry report proceedings were taken only
with respect to five people to invalidate the arbitral award as against
them. There was a total of 550 land owners who were the
beneficiaries of the award. But for the named individuals against
whom allegations were raised and proceedings were taken, both by
putting into motion the criminal law and the writ petition filed for
setting aside the award, the award remained undisturbed. The award
and its cancellation was in the writ petition of the Railways in which
the appellant or the numerous other land owners/beneficiaries were
not made parties.
8. For the Railways, it is contended that the impugned order
confirming the judgment in the writ petition, setting aside the initial
award and the arbitral award has been challenged by the affected
parties, the land owners, before this Court in a Special Leave Petition
(SLP) and, hence, the consideration of the present SLP be kept in
abeyance till the other SLP is heard.
9. After hearing the arguments addressed and looking at the
records, we are not convinced that the pendency of the SLP filed
Page 5 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
against Annexure P-8 and P-9 orders, has any bearing on the
contentions alleged by the appellant herein. Admittedly, the report
of the Collector against the award, resulted in the freezing of
accounts of named land owners who were disbursed with excessive
amounts and FIRs were lodged against the government officers, who
acted in abuse of their powers and the land owners, who were
alleged to have obtained such unjust enrichment in collusion with the
revenue officials. The appellant herein was not a land owner who was
proceeded against based on the inquiry report, either for the
purpose of freezing of account or arrayed as an accused in the FIR
lodged. When the affected government officers and the land owners
filed writ petitions against; the inquiry report, the freezing order and
the criminal proceedings, the respondent-Railways also filed a writ
petition impleading the officers of the government in their official
capacity and the party respondent Nos.6 to 10, who were alleged to
have obtained the excessive award amounts. None of the other land
owners were impleaded, which even as per the records indicates that
the acquisition was from a total of 550 land owners. Only five were
impleaded in the writ petition from amongst the 550 and the tabular
column, as indicated in the Annexure P-8 judgment, as projected by
Page 6 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
the respondent Railways in their writ petition, showed seven persons
of which six had obtained compensation in excess of the actual land
value. Two persons who were shown in the table to have obtained
excessive compensation were not impleaded in the writ petition and
one person who even as per the inquiry report had obtained less than
that actual dues to her, was also impleaded. We are not concerned
with the said parties since, as rightly submitted, their challenge is
pending in the SLP. Since the appellant herein had not been
proceeded against for refund or by a prosecution launched, the
result of the SLP filed by the others who were specifically proceeded
against by the Railways would be of no consequence in the present
case.
10. In this context, we specifically notice the contention of the
respondent Railways recorded by the Division Bench in Annexure P-
9, the judgment in the other set of cases, wherein it has been
categorically stated that, “the award passed by the competent
authority is null and void with respect to the respondents Bali
Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya and others, as the award was
illegally determined against the provisions of law, against the
guidelines for market price for the year 2017-18 and that the
Page 7 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
determination of the compensation in favour of the respective parties,
who have been illegally benefited is the result of commission of
offences regarding which, F.I.R. has been lodged” ( sic para 37 of
Annexure P-11). There was also no averment that the respondents 6
to 10 impleaded there in, were so impleaded in a representative
capacity nor could such a plea be taken since the individual
beneficiaries cannot be represented by a few of them.
11. Hence, the claim of excessive compensation having been
awarded and disbursed, even according to the Railways is confined
to the party respondents in the earlier proceedings and the result of
the SLP filed against the writ appeal judgment is of no legal or lethal
consequence in the present case. We cannot but observe that while
the arbitral award and the initial award were set aside the learned
Single Judge ought to have noticed that the challenge is only against
the five respondents impleaded therein and the setting aside, can
affect only them.
12. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, we find absolutely no
such claim having been raised at that point of time. Even the order
keeping in abeyance the determination and disbursement of the
enhanced amounts or the later order, recalling the enhancement
Page 8 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
does not factually refer to any such allegations having been raised in
the inquiry report of the Collector against the award, qua the
appellant herein. Nor has it found any identity of cause or similarity
in quantum or an unjust enrichment based on the prevailing market
value, insofar as the appellant is concerned.
13. We cannot but notice that the Railways also have not challenged
the arbitral award dated 28.06.2019 passed in favour of the appellant
which could have been done even when it was kept in abeyance.
Pertinent also is the fact that the Railways Act of 1989 does not confer
any power to review, on the Competent Authority authorized by the
Central Government or the Arbitrator appointed under the Rules of
2016.
14. We find the High Court to have egregiously erred in not
interfering with the impugned orders. The judgment in writ appeal
and that in the writ petition impugned herein are set aside. Annexure
P-7 order, keeping in abeyance the enhanced compensation, as
awarded by the Arbitrator and Annexure P-9 order issued by the
Commissioner, Bastar Division, cancelling the earlier award and
concluding the proceedings are both set aside. The initial award as
on 12.02.2018 passed in favour of the appellant and the enhancement
Page 9 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
granted by the Arbitrator on 28.02.2019 stands restored. The entire
award amounts, deducting what has already been granted, with
interest and solatium as applicable till the date of disbursement, shall
be disbursed within a period of three months.
15. The appeal stands allowed.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.……………………………... J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 27, 2026.
Page 10 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No………...of 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.7061 of 2025)
Niraj Jain
….Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority-cum-Additional
Collector, Jagdalpur & Ors.
….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. Whether the setting aside of an award of compensation for land
acquisition, on grounds of it being excessive and resulting in unjust
enrichment of some land owners, acting in collusion with the
competent authority and the revenue officials, who acted in
colourable exercise of powers would ipso facto result in the entire
award with respect to the acquisition being set aside is the question
arising in this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
3. Two sets of litigation arose with respect to the acquisition of
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.01.27
15:55:46 IST
Reason:
land in the State of Chhattisgarh for a Special Rail Project, notified on
Page 1 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
31.08.2017 from Rowghat-Jagdalpur (140 km) between Dallirajhara-
Jagdalpur (235 km).
4. After the award was passed, certain persons also approached
the Arbitrator constituted under the Land Acquisition (Special
1
Railway Projects) Rules, 2016 for the purpose of sub-section (6) of
Section 20-F of the Railways Act, 1989 in which an enhancement was
granted.
5. An inquiry was initiated, alleging excessive amounts having
been awarded far greater to the actual land value. Based on the
inquiry report of the Collector, an FIR was also registered against the
Competent Authority, the Arbitrator as also other revenue officials
and the persons who derived such unjust enrichment. The accused
in the said crime approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh with
separate writ petitions, challenging the inquiry report, the order of
freezing of their accounts and resisting the criminal case registered
against them. Bastar Railways Private Limited, a Joint Venture
Company through its Executive Director, filed a writ petition
impleading the State and its officers and party respondent Nos.6 to
10, land owners, who were alleged to be the beneficiaries of such
1
for short, the Rules of 2016
Page 2 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
colourable exercise of powers by the revenue authorities, carried on
in collusion with them. The said writ petition was allowed as is seen
from Annexure P-8, judgment dated 10.01.2022, setting aside the
award dated 12.02.2018 passed by the competent authority and the
arbitral award by the Commissioner, Jagdalpur dated 11.07.2019.
The judgment was a common judgment in the writ petitions filed by
the beneficiary land owners, the government officials and the
Railways. The Competent Authority was directed to recalculate the
compensation after considering the applicable circulars and
guidelines and also evaluating the factual matrix. The land
owners/petitioners were directed to refund the amount of
compensation received by them, subject to their entitlement and
quantum, being determined by the competent authority afresh. The
government officers were granted protection from coercive steps, on
condition of marking their presence before the Station House Officer,
Jagdalpur every month till the award is passed afresh. A batch of
appeals filed stood dismissed by Annexure P-11 order dated
28.06.2022.
6. While so, the appellant herein, another land owner in a
different village was also granted compensation by the award of the
Page 3 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
Competent Authority on 12.02.2018, however, the quantum not at the
extent it was granted to certain land owners, against whom the
respondent Railways had proceeded specifically before the High
Court. The appellant not being satisfied with the award approached
the Arbitrator who by an order dated 28.06.2019 allowed
enhancement. Immediately thereafter, noticing the inquiry report of
the Collector, by Annexure P-7 order dated 02.08.2019 the
determination of additional compensation, solatium & interest as also
its disbursement was kept in abeyance. The arbitral award and the
initial award were then set aside by Annexure P-9 order dated
21.02.2022 following Annexure P-8, the judgment dated 10.01.2022
of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The appellant was
before the High Court with a writ petition which stood dismissed from
which an appeal was filed, the order rejecting which, is impugned
herein.
7. We heard Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned Additional Solicitor
General, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Tushar
Mehta, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The appellant
asserts that there is neither identity of allegations nor is there any
Page 4 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
taint alleged, with respect to the award passed in favour of the
appellant herein, who was also not proceeded against by the
Railways. Based on the inquiry report proceedings were taken only
with respect to five people to invalidate the arbitral award as against
them. There was a total of 550 land owners who were the
beneficiaries of the award. But for the named individuals against
whom allegations were raised and proceedings were taken, both by
putting into motion the criminal law and the writ petition filed for
setting aside the award, the award remained undisturbed. The award
and its cancellation was in the writ petition of the Railways in which
the appellant or the numerous other land owners/beneficiaries were
not made parties.
8. For the Railways, it is contended that the impugned order
confirming the judgment in the writ petition, setting aside the initial
award and the arbitral award has been challenged by the affected
parties, the land owners, before this Court in a Special Leave Petition
(SLP) and, hence, the consideration of the present SLP be kept in
abeyance till the other SLP is heard.
9. After hearing the arguments addressed and looking at the
records, we are not convinced that the pendency of the SLP filed
Page 5 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
against Annexure P-8 and P-9 orders, has any bearing on the
contentions alleged by the appellant herein. Admittedly, the report
of the Collector against the award, resulted in the freezing of
accounts of named land owners who were disbursed with excessive
amounts and FIRs were lodged against the government officers, who
acted in abuse of their powers and the land owners, who were
alleged to have obtained such unjust enrichment in collusion with the
revenue officials. The appellant herein was not a land owner who was
proceeded against based on the inquiry report, either for the
purpose of freezing of account or arrayed as an accused in the FIR
lodged. When the affected government officers and the land owners
filed writ petitions against; the inquiry report, the freezing order and
the criminal proceedings, the respondent-Railways also filed a writ
petition impleading the officers of the government in their official
capacity and the party respondent Nos.6 to 10, who were alleged to
have obtained the excessive award amounts. None of the other land
owners were impleaded, which even as per the records indicates that
the acquisition was from a total of 550 land owners. Only five were
impleaded in the writ petition from amongst the 550 and the tabular
column, as indicated in the Annexure P-8 judgment, as projected by
Page 6 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
the respondent Railways in their writ petition, showed seven persons
of which six had obtained compensation in excess of the actual land
value. Two persons who were shown in the table to have obtained
excessive compensation were not impleaded in the writ petition and
one person who even as per the inquiry report had obtained less than
that actual dues to her, was also impleaded. We are not concerned
with the said parties since, as rightly submitted, their challenge is
pending in the SLP. Since the appellant herein had not been
proceeded against for refund or by a prosecution launched, the
result of the SLP filed by the others who were specifically proceeded
against by the Railways would be of no consequence in the present
case.
10. In this context, we specifically notice the contention of the
respondent Railways recorded by the Division Bench in Annexure P-
9, the judgment in the other set of cases, wherein it has been
categorically stated that, “the award passed by the competent
authority is null and void with respect to the respondents Bali
Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya and others, as the award was
illegally determined against the provisions of law, against the
guidelines for market price for the year 2017-18 and that the
Page 7 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
determination of the compensation in favour of the respective parties,
who have been illegally benefited is the result of commission of
offences regarding which, F.I.R. has been lodged” ( sic para 37 of
Annexure P-11). There was also no averment that the respondents 6
to 10 impleaded there in, were so impleaded in a representative
capacity nor could such a plea be taken since the individual
beneficiaries cannot be represented by a few of them.
11. Hence, the claim of excessive compensation having been
awarded and disbursed, even according to the Railways is confined
to the party respondents in the earlier proceedings and the result of
the SLP filed against the writ appeal judgment is of no legal or lethal
consequence in the present case. We cannot but observe that while
the arbitral award and the initial award were set aside the learned
Single Judge ought to have noticed that the challenge is only against
the five respondents impleaded therein and the setting aside, can
affect only them.
12. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, we find absolutely no
such claim having been raised at that point of time. Even the order
keeping in abeyance the determination and disbursement of the
enhanced amounts or the later order, recalling the enhancement
Page 8 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
does not factually refer to any such allegations having been raised in
the inquiry report of the Collector against the award, qua the
appellant herein. Nor has it found any identity of cause or similarity
in quantum or an unjust enrichment based on the prevailing market
value, insofar as the appellant is concerned.
13. We cannot but notice that the Railways also have not challenged
the arbitral award dated 28.06.2019 passed in favour of the appellant
which could have been done even when it was kept in abeyance.
Pertinent also is the fact that the Railways Act of 1989 does not confer
any power to review, on the Competent Authority authorized by the
Central Government or the Arbitrator appointed under the Rules of
2016.
14. We find the High Court to have egregiously erred in not
interfering with the impugned orders. The judgment in writ appeal
and that in the writ petition impugned herein are set aside. Annexure
P-7 order, keeping in abeyance the enhanced compensation, as
awarded by the Arbitrator and Annexure P-9 order issued by the
Commissioner, Bastar Division, cancelling the earlier award and
concluding the proceedings are both set aside. The initial award as
on 12.02.2018 passed in favour of the appellant and the enhancement
Page 9 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025
granted by the Arbitrator on 28.02.2019 stands restored. The entire
award amounts, deducting what has already been granted, with
interest and solatium as applicable till the date of disbursement, shall
be disbursed within a period of three months.
15. The appeal stands allowed.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.……………………………... J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 27, 2026.
Page 10 of 10
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025