Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
(Arising from S.L.P.(Civil) No. 13885/2022)
Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad and Another …Appellants
Versus
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad in SCA No. 9258/2021, by which the High Court has
dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants – original writ
petitioners for quashing temporary acquisition proceedings, the original
writ petitioners – landowners have preferred the present appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2023.01.20
16:12:12 IST
Reason:
3. That the land bearing survey No. 837/1 situated at Village Vastral,
Taluka Vatva, District Ahmedabad admeasuring 10034 square meters is
1
under temporary acquisition by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
(ONGC) since the year 1996 for the purposes of oil exploration, which
land was undisputedly purchased by appellant No.1 under a registered
sale deed dated 15.03.2005. It is required to be noted that as such now
the land in question falls in the city of Ahmedabad and it cannot be
disputed that the prices of the land have increased manyfold and even
the surrounding lands are already developed. At present, the appellants
are being paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 24/- per square meter per
annum for temporary acquisition.
3.1 That the appellants herein approached the High Court in the year
2016 by way of SCA No. 3992/2016 seeking a direction to the
respondents to either acquire the land on permanent basis or release the
land from acquisition. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide
order dated 23.02.2017 on the stand taken by the respondents that they
will initiate the process for acquiring the land permanently. However
thereafter no concrete steps were taken to acquire the land permanently.
On the contrary, ONGC approached the Special Land Acquisition
Officer/Collector. The Land Acquisition Officer addressed a
communication to the Deputy Collector that there shall be huge cost
involvement in acquiring the land on permanent basis under the new
Land Acquisition Act, 2013. However thereafter the acquisition
proceedings were kept on hold and the appellants continued to be paid
2
the rent @ Rs. 24/- per square meter per annum for temporary
acquisition. That after the disposal of the writ petition in 2017 and
though it was assured that the process for permanently acquiring the
land would be initiated, nothing was done thereafter and therefore the
appellants again approached the High Court for quashing of the
acquisition proceedings and to direct the respondents to release the said
land from temporary acquisition and to handover vacant and peaceful
possession of the land in question to the appellants.
3.2 It was the case on behalf of the appellants that to continue the
temporary acquisition for nearly 25 years would be absolutely
unreasonable and arbitrary and that too by paying abysmally low rent. It
was pointed out that in the neighbouring area, Ahmedabad Metro Rail
Corporation is paying Rs. 1000/- per square meter per month as rent
whereas now the rate of rent fixed for the subject land is Rs. 30/- per
square meter per annum.
3.3 In response to the notice issued by the High Court, the
respondents appeared before the High Court. It was again submitted
that the competent authority has accorded approval for acquisition of the
subject land on permanent basis and the same is under process. A
statement was made on behalf of the ONGC before the High Court that
the acquisition proceedings would be concluded within 12 months. An
undertaking on behalf of the ONGC was also placed on record. Relying
3
upon the said undertaking, the High Court, by the impugned judgment
and order, has rejected the prayer for quashing temporary acquisition
proceedings. However, taking note of the fact that the Corporation made
a show of having paid enhanced rent from Rs. 24/- per square meter per
annum to Rs. 30/- per square meter per annum, which can be said to be
abysmally on the lower side and not commensurate with the prevalent
market rent and the statutory authorities of the State under similar
circumstances having paid Rs. 1,000/- per square meter per month, the
High Court has directed that the Corporation would consider the claim of
the appellants for paying rent at Rs. 1,000/- per square meter per month
till acquisition of the land on permanent basis from the date of purchase
of the land by the appellants i.e., from 15.3.2005.
3.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court refusing to quash the temporary
acquisition proceedings and as such not passing any order to increase
the rent per month for temporary acquisition, the landowners have
preferred the present appeal.
4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellants – landowners has vehemently
submitted that to continue the temporary acquisition for number of years,
namely, in the present case, twenty five years and that too on payment
of a meagre rent per annum is nothing but arbitrary, unreasonable and
4
violative of right to hold property guaranteed under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India.
4.1 It is submitted that even in the year 2016, an assurance was given
to the High Court that to acquire the land permanently, proceedings shall
be initiated and on that assurance the High Court disposed of the earlier
writ petition. It is submitted that thereafter also, after a period of six
years, no further concrete steps are taken to acquire the land
permanently and the appellants are being paid meagre rent at present at
the rate of Rs. 30/- per square meter per annum.
4.2 It is further submitted that the area in question in which the land
under temporary acquisition is situated is now forming part of the city
area and is a fully developed area and the prices have gone very high.
It is submitted that therefore to offer/pay rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per
square meter per annum and that too for the entire area of the land in
the developed area is absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of
Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that because of
the temporary acquisition for 25 years, the appellants are not in a
position to use the land in question. They are not in a position to fetch
the market price. They are also not getting the adequate
compensation/rent. It is submitted that if the land would have been
acquired permanently earlier, the appellants would have got sufficient
compensation and the appellants would have utilised that money for
5
purchase of other land, which the appellants could not because of non-
payment of compensation due to non-acquisition of the land
permanently.
5. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India has submitted that the land in question has been acquired by the
ONGC for its oil exploration and production activities on temporary basis.
It is submitted that for the aforesaid the landowners are being paid the
annual rent revised from time to time by the Committee comprising
Collector, Town Planning Officer, Deputy Collector, Assistant Collector,
Special Land Acquisition Officer and the representative of the ONGC
with respect to the land situated in Gujarat. It is submitted that the
appellants are accepting the periodically revised upward rent voluntarily.
5.1 It is further submitted that after the High Court passed an order in
Special Civil Application No.3992/2016, which was disposed of on the
statement made by the respondents that they would initiate the process
of permanent acquisition, on 23.5.2018, Revenue Department,
Government of Gujarat published a notification stating that the land in
question is required by the ONGC for public purpose declaring its
intention to acquire the land for development of its infrastructure. It is
submitted that after the notification dated 23.5.2018, again on
22.07.2019, Revenue Department of Government of Gujarat published a
notification relating to land in question required by the ONGC for public
6
purpose, the same was issued under Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’). It is submitted that
however thereafter on 21.10.2019 through internal communication,
GM(HR) I/c LAQ Section, ONGC, Ahmedabad was informed that the
permanent acquisition of the land in question is put on hold and the
proposal detailing number of acquisition to be made at Ahmedabad
Asset, including its financial implications have been sent for appraisal to
the Executive Committee/ONGC Board. It is submitted that therefore the
respondent-ONGC has full intention to proceed with the permanent
acquisition, but due to the reasons so stated in the letter dated
21.10.2019, the process for permanent acquisition was put on hold. It is
therefore submitted that the respondent-ONGC needs more time to
make the acquisition process in conformity with 2013 Act, to acquire the
land permanently.
5.2 Now so far as the grievance on behalf of the appellants that they
are being paid meagre annual rent is concerned, it is submitted that as
such In-house Executive Committee of the ONGC revises the rate after
every three years. It is submitted that the rate of rent is revised recently
as well with effect from 1.2.2021 from Rs. 24/- per square meter to Rs.
30/- per square meter for the lands acquired directly by ONGC on
temporary basis. It is submitted that periodical upward rent is accepted
7
voluntarily by the appellants. It is submitted that the appellants again
claiming the annual rent/revision of annual rent considering the market
value/market price of the land in question.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the land in question
owned by the appellants has been under temporary acquisition by the
respondent-ONGC since the year 1996 for the purposes of its oil
exploration. The land in question has been purchased by the first
appellant under a registered sale deed dated 15.3.2005. Therefore, as
such, at the time when appellant No.1 purchased the land in question,
the land in question was under temporary acquisition by the ONGC. Be
that as it may, on and from 15.3.2005, appellant No. 1 is the owner of
the land in question and therefore can question the temporary
acquisition if the temporary acquisition has been continued for a long
period. It is to be noted that the land in question now falls in the city of
Ahmedabad and the prices of the land have increased manyfold. The
appellants are being paid the annual rent @ Rs. 30/- per square meter
per annum as revised.
As observed hereinabove, the land in question is under temporary
acquisition by the ONGC since the year 1996 for its oil exploration. The
same is under temporary acquisition under Section 35 of the Land
8
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘1894 Act’). Section 35 of the 1894 Act
reads as under:
“35. Temporary occupation of waste or arable land, procedure when
difference as to compensation exists – (1) Subject to the provisions of Part
VII of this Act, whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that the
temporary occupation and use of any waste or arable land are needed for
any public purpose, or for a company, the appropriate Government may
direct the Collector to procure the occupation and use of the same for
such terms as it shall think fit, not exceeding three years from
commencement of such occupation.
(2) The Collector shall thereupon give notice in writing to the persons
interested in such land of the purpose for which the same is needed, and
shall, for the occupation and use thereof, for such term as aforesaid, and
for the materials (if any) to be taken therefrom, pay to them such
compensation, either in a gross sum of money, or by monthly or other
periodical payments, as shall be agreed upon in writing between him and
such persons respectively.
(3) In case the Collector and the persons interested differ as to the
sufficiency of the compensation or apportionment thereof, the Collector
shall refer such difference to the decision of the Court.”
7. Approximately 26 years have passed and still the land in question
is under temporary acquisition by the ONGC. If the land is continued to
be under temporary acquisition for number of years, meaning and
purpose of temporary acquisition would lose its significance. Temporary
acquisition cannot be continued for approximately 20 to 25 years. It
cannot be disputed that once the land is under temporary acquisition and
the same is being used by the ONGC for oil exploration, it may not be
possible for the landowners to use the land; to cultivate the same and/or
to deal with the same in any manner. To continue with the temporary
acquisition for number of years would be arbitrary and can be said to be
9
infringing the right to use the property guaranteed under Article 300A of
the Constitution of India. Even to continue with the temporary acquisition
for a longer period can be said to be unreasonable, infringing the rights
of the landowners to deal with and/or use the land.
However, from the material on record, it appears that in the year
2018 and after the High Court disposed of the earlier writ petition on the
submission made on behalf of the ONGC that the land in question shall
be acquired permanently, efforts were made in the year 2018 to acquire
the land under the provisions of the 2013 Act. However, thereafter the
same is put on hold by the Land Acquisition Officer/State Government
and the reason seems to be the higher value of the land to be paid
towards compensation. Even before this Court also, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the ONGC has prayed for some further time to
acquire the land in question permanently. As such, in the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court has granted time to the ONGC and
the State to acquire the land in question permanently within twelve
months from the date of the impugned order, i.e., within twelve months
from 26.04.2022, i.e., on or before 26.04.2023. Therefore, as such, a
writ of mandamus is already issued by the High Court directing the
Corporation ONGC to complete the acquisition proceedings on or before
26.04.2023. Therefore, if the land in question is not acquired as per the
writ issued by the High Court within a stipulated time, necessary
10
consequence shall follow. The respondent-ONGC is directed to act as
per the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, more
particularly para 7(ii), failing which necessary consequence shall follow.
8. Now so far as the grievance with respect to the quantum of annual
rent paid is concerned, the High Court has already issued directions in
terms of para 7(iii) of the impugned judgment and order. Even otherwise,
as per section 34 of the 1894 Act, if the appellants are aggrieved by the
amount of compensation/annual rent, it will always be open to the
appellants/landowners to approach the Collector and the Collector shall
refer such reference to the decision of the Court.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present appeal
stands disposed of in terms of the above.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
JANUARY 20, 2023. [M.M. SUNDRESH]
11