2026 Supreme(SC) 960

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Singapogu Babu Rao & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024
Decided On : 19-08-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Acquisition of land – Enjoyment Survey captures nothing more than fact of physical occupation on land at the time it is conducted – It does not purport to examine legal title, right, or interest by virtue of which such occupation is held for the purpose of apportionment of compensation.
(2) Acquisition of land – Awards could not be considered binding on those who were non-signatories to awards.

Headnote:

(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 29, 30 and 31 – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 19 – Acquisition of land – Resolution of title dispute and apportionment of compensation – Reference to Lok Adalat – Once compensation is deposited in court, function of Collector, insofar as apportionment is concerned, comes to an end – Very act of making reference under Section 30 is acknowledgment by Collector of a prima facie dispute as to title, more particularly, as to apportionment of compensation which he is neither equipped nor empowered to resolve – Partial or truncated consensus, wherein some claimants are involved, cannot take effect as “agreement” within meaning of Section 29 – Enjoyment Survey captures nothing more than fact of physical occupation on land at the time it is conducted – It does not purport to examine legal title, right, or interest by virtue of which such occupation is held – Findings of such survey cannot be treated as conclusive of entitlement to compensation – Physical possession may be held under any number of capacities, and such a survey is incapable of distinguishing between these. (Paras 30, 34, 37, 41 and 44)

(B) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 19 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 29, 30 and 31 – National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009 – Regulation 13(6) – Acquisition of land – Resolution of title dispute and apportionment of compensation – Reference to Lok Adalat – When Government acquires property, public funds are disbursed as compensation – It must be paid to person entitled and determined as per law – Impugned awards do not reflect genuine agreement under Section 29 of Act, 1894, since all disputing claimants were not parties or signatories thereto – Awards could not be considered binding on those who were non-signatories to awards – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside and matter remitted to Court of Principal District Judge, for de novo hearing of reference – Appeal allowed. (Paras 37, 44, 45, 52 and 53)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 8 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 30 – Class action (Representative Suit) – Acquisition of land – Apportionment of compensation – Representative suit under Order I Rule 8 of CPC presupposes community of interest among persons represented, as interest of those who are being represented is adequately protected by those who are representing them – It would be wholly inappropriate to a proceeding where subject matter of dispute is bone of contention between claimants themselves and they are not “two parties” arriving at a settlement – In such a case, there exists no common interest capable of representation. (Para 49)

Facts of the case:

Points in issue are: –

A. Whether procedure adopted by High Court refereeing dispute between claimants to Lok Adalat through Legal Service Committee was correct in eyes of law?

B. Whether Order I Rule 8 of CPC or principles thereof could be said to be made applicable in proceedings before Lok Adalat?

Findings of Court:

There is nothing on record to indicate that both the parties in dispute on the payment of compensation agreed to the settlement arrived at by the Lok Adalat. In such circumstances, the awards could not be considered binding on those who were non-signatories to the awards.

Result : Appeal allowed.