1. Land acquisition compensation dispute — Appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1630
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
The Union Of India Etc – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner And Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 3241, 3242 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 28501-28502 of 2024]
Decided on : 25-02-2025
The Supreme Court held that failing to implead and hear the beneficiary of land acquisition proceedings violates the principles of natural justice. Consequently, an award made without giving the beneficiary an opportunity to contest the claim is vitiated and must be set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 74 - Appeal dismissed by the High Court on grounds of locus standi of the Deputy Commissioner - Court found Deputy Commissioner entitled to challenge award as an aggrieved person. (Paras 3 and 5)
(B) Natural Justice - UoI, representing CRPF, not heard in prior proceedings - Breach of principles of natural justice resulting in vitiation of award. (Paras 7 and 11)
Facts of the case:
The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner concerning compensation awarded for land acquisition amounting to Rs. 338 crore, stating the Commissioner lacked locus standi. UoI appealed on basis of being aggrieved by the awarded liabilities on CRPF.
Findings of Court:
The appeal by UoI was allowed, emphasizing the failure to hear the CRPF during the previous proceedings as a breach of natural justice, leading to the award being set aside.
Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the right to appeal and whether principles of natural justice were upheld in previous proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the Deputy Commissioner was an aggrieved party with locus standi, and the principle of natural justice mandates that parties must be heard before any awards impacting them are made.
Result: Appeals allowed; award set aside and remanded for fresh proceedings.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner had locus standi to appeal and whether the failure to implead the beneficiary of the acquisition violated principles of natural justice. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. The beneficiary of the acquisition was not heard before the reference court, breaching natural justice, and critical documents were overlooked, vitiating the award. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. An award is vitiated if the beneficiary of the acquisition is not impleaded or heard, violating the principles of natural justice. (Para 7 , 10 )
5. Impugned judgment and award set aside; matter remanded for fresh adjudication with the beneficiary impleaded as a party. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Does a Deputy Commissioner have the locus standi to challenge a land acquisition award under Section 74 of the 2013 Act?
Yes, if the Deputy Commissioner was a respondent before the reference court, they are considered an aggrieved person and have the right to maintain an appeal. (Para 3 )
7. What is the legal effect of failing to implead the beneficiary of land acquisition proceedings in the reference court?
Failing to put the beneficiary on notice or provide them an opportunity to be heard constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice, which vitiates the resulting award. (Para 7 , 10 )
8. How must claims of coercion or duress regarding documents be handled in reference court proceedings?
Claims that documents were obtained under coercion or duress must be specifically averred in the claim statement and proved by adducing requisite evidence before the court. (Para 9 , 10 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh High Court by a judgment and order dated January 24, 2023 rejected an appeal LA. App./11/2022 carried by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, Assam under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [2013 Act] from the judgment and award dated February 25, 2022 said award of the District Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Nagaon in Ref. (LA) Case No. 1/2018. By the said award, the respondents 2 and 3 in these appeals were granted compensation in a sum of Rs.338 crore and odd in lieu of acquisition of 80+ bighas of land (54+ of the respondent no.2, and 26+ of the respondent no.3).
3. The ground on which the appeal of the Deputy Commissioner came to be dismissed is that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the locus standi to challenge the award. The learned Judge of the High Court clearly overlooked that the Deputy Commissioner was the respondent before the reference court and, therefore, clearly had the right to maintain the appeal being an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 74 of the 2013 Act.
4. There was one other appeal I.A. (Civil)/2788/2023 carried from the said award before the High Court by the Union of India [UoI], the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force [CRPF] and the Commandant, 34 Bn., CRPF. The said appeal, however, was dismissed as time-barred by a judgment and order dated January 30, 2024 by the High Court.
5. However, these appeals are not at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner but at the instance of the UoI, on behalf of the CRPF, pursuant to liberty granted by this Court by an order dated September 10, 2024 in SLP (Civil) No. 22083/2024. UoI is aggrieved because the entire liability of making payment of compensation of Rs.338 crore and odd is now foisted on the CRPF, which was not made a party to the proceedings before the reference court and, therefore, not put on notice, far less to speak of being heard.
6. We have heard Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant - UoI, Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 - Deputy Commissioner and Mr. Hareshwar Borah and Mrs. Madhumita Borah, respondents 2 and 3, respectively, who are appearing in-person.
7. We need not examine the merits of the challenge in depth having found that the UoI, which has filed this appeal on behalf of the CRPF (the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings), was not heard in course of the proceedings before the reference court. Principles of natural justice, thus, have been observed in the breach.
8. It also appears from the records that the respondents 2 and 3 were initially found on August 2, 2016, by the Deputy Commissioner, entitled to a sum of little less than Rs. 10 crore [Rs.9,69,60,000/- to be precise]. Not having been extended any opportunity to contest the claim of the respondents 2 and 3 for payment of enhanced compensation before the reference court, the UoI, or for that matter the CRPF, could not oppose the astronomical increase in the quantum of compensation whereby Rs.338 crore and odd has been awarded as compensation without, however, looking into certain very relevant documents which include letters/representations addressed by the respondent no.2 dated September 2, 2013, August 28, 2015, September 24, 2015 and December 9, 2015. Having regard to the order that we propose to pass, it is again not considered necessary to refer to its contents in any great detail. Suffice it to observe that the contents are quite damaging for the respondents 2 and 3, if at all the same were issued voluntarily.
9. Although the respondents 2 and 3 have vociferously argued before this Court that such letters/representations were obtained under coercion and duress, we find that neither were the same placed on recor
