Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 58
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad and Another – Appellants
Versus
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 472 of 2023, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 13885 of 2022
Decided On : 20-01-2023
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jatin Zaveri, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv. Mr. Pradeep K.B., Adv. Ms. Jaspreet Aulakh, Adv. Mr. Tanpreet Gulati, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, AOR Mr. Anirudha Kumar, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary acquisition of land – To continue with temporary acquisition for number of years would be arbitrary and can be said to be infringing right to use property guaranteed under Article 300A of Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 35 – Constitution of India – Article 300A – Temporary acquisition of land – Land in question is under temporary acquisition by ONGC since year 1996 for its oil exploration – Approximately 26 years have passed and still land in question is under temporary acquisition by ONGC – If 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 – To continue with temporary acquisition for number of years would be arbitrary and can be said to be infringing right to use property guaranteed under Article 300A of Constitution of India – Even to continue with temporary acquisition for a longer period can be said to be unreasonable, infringing rights of landowners to deal with and/or use land – However, in impugned judgment and order, High Court has granted time to the ONGC and State to acquire land in question permanently within twelve months from date of impugned order – If land in question is not acquired as per writ issued by High Court within stipulated time, necessary consequence shall follow – ONGC directed to act as per impugned judgment and order passed by High Court. (Paras 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
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 High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants – original writ petitioners for quashing temporary acquisition proceedings, original writ petitioners – landowners have preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
So far as the grievance with respect to the quantum of annual rent paid is concerned, 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 amount of compensation/annual rent, it will always be open to appellants/landowners to approach Collector and the Collector shall refer such reference to the decision of Court.
Result : Appeal disposed of with observations and directions.
JUDGMENT :
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.
3. That the land bearing Survey No. 837/1 situated at Village Vastral, Taluka Vatva, District Ahmedabad admeasuring 10034 square meters is 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 many-fold 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 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 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 pai
