Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Niraj Jain – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority-cum-Additional Collector, Jagdalpur & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No… of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7061 of 2025)
Decided On : 27-01-2026
Railways Act, 1989 – Section 20-F(6) – Land Acquisition (Special Railway Projects) Rules, 2016 – Acquisition of land – Setting aside of award of compensation – Claim of excessive compensation having been awarded and disbursed, even according to Railways is confined to party respondents in earlier proceedings and result of SLP filed against writ appeal judgment is of no legal or lethal consequence in present case – While arbitral award and initial award were set aside Single Judge ought to have noticed that challenge is only against five respondents impleaded therein and setting aside, can affect only them – Insofar as appellant is concerned, absolutely no such claim having been raised at that point of time – Even order keeping in abeyance determination and disbursement of enhanced amounts or later order, recalling enhancement does not factually refer to any such allegations having been raised in inquiry report of Collector against award, qua appellant – Nor has it found any identity of cause or similarity in quantum or an unjust enrichment based on prevailing market value, insofar as appellant is concerned – Initial award passed in favour of appellant and enhancement granted by Arbitrator restored. (Paras 11, 12 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Whether setting aside of an award of compensation for land acquisition, on grounds of it being excessive and resulting in unjust enrichment of some land owners, acting in collusion with competent authority and revenue officials, who acted in colourable exercise of powers would ipso facto result in entire award with respect to acquisition being set aside is the question arising in this appeal.
Findings of Court:
Railways also have not challenged arbitral award dated 28.06.2019 passed in favour of appellant which could have been done even when it was kept in abeyance. Pertinent also is fact that Railways Act of 1989 does not confer any power to review, on Competent Authority authorized by Central Government or the Arbitrator appointed under Rules of 2016.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The legal reasoning in this case centers on the principle that the invalidation of a land acquisition award on the grounds of excessiveness and resulting unjust enrichment of certain beneficiaries does not automatically nullify the entire award or the entire acquisition process (!) (!) . The court emphasizes that challenges to awards are often specific to particular respondents or beneficiaries, and the scope of such challenges does not extend to all landowners or the entire acquisition unless explicitly stated (!) .
Furthermore, the court clarifies that the challenge was only against specific respondents who were implicated in alleged collusion and colorable exercise of powers, and the appellant, who was not proceeded against or implicated in the inquiry or criminal proceedings, could not be adversely affected by the orders setting aside the award for others (!) (!) . The fact that the award in favor of the appellant was not challenged by the Railways, and that the arbitral award was passed in favor of the appellant, indicates that the appellant’s rights remain intact and unaffected by the issues concerning other beneficiaries (!) (!) .
Additionally, the court notes that the challenge to the award was limited to the respondents who were specifically named and implicated in the inquiry, and the appellant’s award was not subject to such proceedings or allegations (!) (!) . The absence of any challenge by the Railways to the arbitral award in favor of the appellant further supports the conclusion that the appellant’s award should be restored and disbursed (!) .
Finally, the court highlights that the statutory framework governing the land acquisition process under the relevant Act does not confer authority to review or set aside awards on the basis of alleged excessiveness or unjust enrichment, especially when such awards are not challenged or impugned by the acquiring authority (!) .
In sum, the legal argument underscores that invalidating or setting aside part of an award, based on allegations of collusion or excessiveness involving specific respondents, does not automatically impact the rights of beneficiaries who are not implicated or challenged, and the entire award should be restored where the appellant’s award was not challenged or tainted by the proceedings against others.
JUDGMENT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. Whether the setting aside of an award of compensation for land acquisition, on grounds of it being excessive and resulting in unjust enrichment of some land owners, acting in collusion with the competent authority and the revenue officials, who acted in colourable exercise of powers would ipso facto result in the entire award with respect to the acquisition being set aside is the question arising in this appeal.
3. Two sets of litigation arose with respect to the acquisition of land in the State of Chhattisgarh for a Special Rail Project, notified on 31.08.2017 from Rowghat-Jagdalpur (140 km) between Dallirajhara- Jagdalpur (235 km).
4. After the award was passed, certain persons also approached the Arbitrator constituted under the Land Acquisition (Special Railway Projects) Rules, 2016 [for short, the Rules of 2016] for the purpose of sub-section (6) of Section 20-F of the Railways Act, 1989 in which an enhancement was granted.
5. An inquiry was initiated, alleging excessive amounts having been awarded far greater to the actual land value. Based on the inquiry report of the Collector, an FIR was also registered against the Competent Authority, the Arbitrator as also other revenue officials and the persons who derived such unjust enrichment. The accused in the said crime approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh with separate writ petitions, challenging the inquiry report, the order of freezing of their accounts and resisting the criminal case registered against them. Bastar Railways Private Limited, a Joint Venture Company through its Executive Director, filed a writ petition impleading the State and its officers and party respondent Nos.6 to 10, land owners, who were alleged to be the beneficiaries of such colourable exercise of powers by the revenue authorities, carried on in collusion with them. The said writ petition was allowed as is seen from Annexure P-8, judgment dated 10.01.2022, setting aside the award dated 12.02.2018 passed by the competent authority and the arbitral award by the Commissioner, Jagdalpur dated 11.07.2019. The judgment was a common judgment in the writ petitions filed by the beneficiary land owners, the government officials and the Railways. The Competent Authority was directed to recalculate the compensation after considering the applicable circulars and guidelines and also evaluating the factual matrix. The land owners/petitioners were directed to refund the amount of compensation received by them, subject to their entitlement and quantum, being determined by the competent authority afresh. The government officers were granted protection from coercive steps, on condition of marking their presence before the Station House Officer, Jagdalpur every month till the award is passed afresh. A batch of appeals filed stood dismissed by Annexure P-11 order dated 28.06.2022.
6. While so, the appellant herein, another land owner in a different village was also granted compensation by the award of the Competent Authority on 12.02.2018, however, the quantum not at the extent it was granted to certain land owners, against whom the respondent Railways had proceeded specifically before the High Court. The appellant not being satisfied with the award approached the Arbitrator who by an order dated 28.06.2019 allowed enhancement. Immediately thereafter, noticing the inquiry report of the Collector, by Annexure P-7 order dated 02.08.2019 the determination of additional compensation, solatium & interest as also its disbursement was kept in abeyance. The arbitral award and the initial award were then set aside by Annexure P-9 order dated 21.02.2022 following Annexure P-8, the judgment dated 10.01.2022 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The appellant was before the High Court with a writ petition which stood dismissed from which an appeal was filed, the order rejecting which, is impugned herein.
7. We heard Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr.
Acquisition of land – Setting aside of award of compensation for land acquisition, on grounds of it being excessive and resulting in unjust enrichment of some land owners, would not ipso facto result....
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition if an adequate alternative remedy exists, and the reassessment of compensation under the Railways Act was upheld as valid.
Aggrieved parties must seek arbitration under Section 20-F of the Railways Act for disputes related to compensation adequacy in land acquisition.
When landowners are identically situated under the same acquisition notification, denying them parity in compensation constitutes hostile discrimination. In such cases, courts may exercise writ juris....
Landowners whose properties are acquired under the same notification for the same public purpose are entitled to parity in compensation. Denying such parity is arbitrary and violates the constitution....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
