LAC Directed to Release Balance Compensation as per its own Minutes of Meeting Within Two Months.

The Petitioners, co-owners of land in Village Holambi Kalan, sought the release of withheld compensation payments under Award No. 16/03-04 and Supplementary Award No. 16A/04-05

While the initial compensation was reduced via a review award dated 14th July 2004, the Supreme Court subsequently set aside said review in Civil Appeal No. 6637/6638 of 2010 on 17th October 2019

Following contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court, minutes of a meeting dated 4th January 2021 were circulated detailing unpaid amounts due to affected persons, including the Petitioners

The Respondents (LAC) filed a counter-affidavit claiming that payments of Rs. 6,38,798/- each had already been made to the Petitioners on 29th March 2022, rendering the petition infructuous

The Petitioners disputed this, asserting that significantly higher amounts remain due based on the LAC’s own internal minutes

1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to further compensation beyond the payments made on 29th March 2022, in light of the Supreme Court's order setting aside the review award

2. Whether the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) is obligated to release payments in strict accordance with the minutes of the meeting dated 4th January 2021

The Court's decision is grounded in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically regarding the finality of Awards and the obligation of the state to pay determined compensation

It further applied the principle of judicial hierarchy, acknowledging that once a review award is set aside by the Supreme Court, the original compensation levels must be restored

The Court also emphasized the duty of litigants to disclose material facts (such as partial payments received) and the state's duty of transparency in accounting for public funds

The Court observed a dual failure: the Petitioners failed to fully disclose the receipt of partial compensation (Rs. 6,38,798/- each), while the LAC remained silent and failed to explain the discrepancy between the amount paid and the higher figures recorded in their own minutes of meeting dated 4th January 2021

The Court reasoned that since the Supreme Court had struck down the reduction of compensation, the LAC was bound by its own internal assessment of the "affected persons" and the corresponding dues identified during the contempt proceedings

Consequently, the Court found that the mere payment of some amount did not necessarily satisfy the total liability if the LAC's records indicated a higher outstanding balance

The Court held that failure to comply within the stipulated timeline would attract liability for higher interest; Liberty was granted to the Petitioners to move an application if the payment is not realized