2024 Supreme(SC) 805

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
M/S. Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Mast Ram & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10662 of 2024 (Arising out of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14286 of 2022)
Decided On : 20-09-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Acquisition of land – Disputes regarding ownership of subject land cannot be an impediment to legitimate rights of original landowners to receive compensation.
(2) Return of acquired land – Party which has failed to utilize land cannot plead for return of land and consequent refund of compensation paid.
(3) Payment of full and final compensation to land owners is a precursor to taking possession of land sought to be acquired from such persons.

Headnote:

(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(1)(a) – Transfer of land under acquisition – Liability to pay compensation – Disputes regarding ownership of subject land cannot be an impediment to legitimate rights of original landowners to receive compensation – Subject land was acquired under compulsory provisions of 1894 Act to provide a safety zone for cement plant and mining areas – Land was acquired in connection with JAL Business – Exercise of determination of compensation amount which is a part of acquisition proceedings remained pending even after effective date of Scheme – Contention of JAL that Appellant should pay amount as determined under Supplementary Award because subject land was integral to cement project rejected. (Paras 27, 29 and 32)

(B) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 101 – Return of acquired land – Acquisition of subject land was done as a safety measure for residents of area and not to be used actively in cement project – No other use except that subject land may pose hazard to residents was envisaged during acquisition proceedings – Subject land has been in use all throughout operation of cement project by serving as a safety zone and condition of being unutilized is not satisfied – JAL cannot pray for return of land as that would result in endangering lives and property of original landowners – Party which has failed to utilize land cannot plead for return of land and consequent refund of compensation paid, as that would tantamount to taking advantage of its own default. (Paras 37, 38, 39 and 40)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 300-A – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 5A and 17(4) – Acquisition of land – Invocation of urgency provision – Time is of essence in determination and payment of compensation – Payment of full and final compensation to land owners is a precursor to taking possession of land sought to be acquired from such persons – Acquisition of land for public purpose is undertaken under power of eminent domain of government much against wishes of owners of land which gets acquired – When such a power is exercised, it is coupled with a bounden duty and obligation on part of Government body to ensure that owners whose lands get acquired are paid compensation – Delay in payment of compensation to landowners after taking away ownership of subject land from them is in contravention to spirit of constitutional scheme of Article 300A and idea of a welfare State. (Paras 45, 47, 48 and 49)

Facts of the case:

This appeal arises from the order passed High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla dated 12.07.2022 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2350/2018 filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein (original petitioners) by which High Court allowed writ petition and directed Appellant herein to pay requisite amount towards compensation as determined in Supplementary Award dated 02.05.2022 passed by Land Acquisition Collector, in first instance with liberty to recover same from M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited (“JAL”) if permissible under legal relationship between two companies.

Findings of Court:

Acquisition proceedings herein failed to confirm to this statutorily mandated sequence of events. It is regrettable that State of Himachal Pradesh, being a welfare State, did not ensure payment of compensation to Respondent Nos. 1-6 before taking possession of their lands.

Result : Appeal allowed.