SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 1270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., PRANAV TRIVEDI, JJ.
Amaratlal Jividas Patel & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3384 of 2020 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3384 of 2020 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6749 of 2020
Decided on : 22-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant :MR DEVANG NANAVATI, SR ADVOCATE with MR. Y.J. PATEL and MR PAWAN A BAROT, MR Y J PATEL
For the Respondent:MS HETAL G. PATEL, AGP, MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR. KUNAN B. NAIK

The court established that consent awards under land acquisition laws are binding and cannot be altered without mutual consent, emphasizing the importance of statutory interest on unpaid compensation.

Headnote:

Compensation - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 23A, 26, 80 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding consent awards and statutory interest, affirming the validity of the consent award while denying additional compensation based on the Indexation Formula due to lack of consent from the acquiring body.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves petitions from land holders seeking compensation under a Supplementary Award and a challenge by the acquiring body, ONGC, against the validity of government resolutions and the Supplementary Award, claiming it was unreasonable and unconstitutional.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the consent award was valid and compensation had been paid as per the agreement, while the claim for additional compensation based on the Indexation Formula was not supported by the necessary consent from ONGC.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the Supplementary Award and the applicability of the Indexation Formula for additional compensation without the acquiring body's consent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a consent award is made, it cannot be unilaterally amended without the consent of the acquiring body, and statutory interest is payable on the remaining compensation amount.

Result: Both petitions are allowed in part; land holders are entitled to interest on the remaining compensation, but additional compensation based on the Indexation Formula is denied.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. In this group of petitions, Special Civil Application No. 3384 of 2020 has been filed by the land holders for the relief that they be awarded compensation as per the Supplementary Award dated 08.05.2019 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ONGC under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. The connected Special Civil Application No. 6749 of 2020 has been filed by the ONGC, the acquiring body, to challenge the validity of the Government Resolution dated 04.04.2018 and 11.09.2018 with the assertion that the said resolutions are ultra vires the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Further challenge is to the Award dated 14.08.2018 passed by the respondent no.2, viz. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ONGC, as also the Supplementary Award dated 08.05.2019 on the plea of being unreasonable, unconstitutional and illegal.

3. The facts relevant to decide the controversy at hand are that a consent term dated 11.01.2017 was entered into between the parties, viz. ONGC and the land holders. A Consent Award dated 14.08.2018 under Section 23A of the Gujarat Amendment Act, 2016 was published on 20.09.2018. As per the statement made in the Writ petition filed by the ONGC, it is an admitted fact of the matter that the land holders have been paid compensation under the Consent Award dated 14.08.2018 published on 20.09.2018.

4. It is stated in paragraph 4.5' of the Writ petition filed by the ONGC that in view of the communication dated 20.09.2018 received from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ONGC, the Corporation had deposited the remaining amount of 20% as per the Consent Award dated 14.08.2018 vide letter dated 23.10.2018. However, on 05.07.2019, the Corporation (ONGC) had received a letter from the office of the Additional District Collector, Mehsana and again on 08.07.2019, a letter was received from the office of the Collector, Mehsana asking the ONGC to give consent for payment of additional amount of Rs. 4,20,97,374/-, for making the supplementary award on the ground that the land owners have demanded additional compensation as per the resolution dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat.

5. In response thereto, the communications dated 22.10.2019 and 22.11.2019 were sent to the Collector, Mehsana stating that the Corporation (ONGC) is not liable to pay any additional amount of compensation towards the market value demanded by the land holders, determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as per the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2018. However, vide letter dated 23.12.2019, the Corporation has been served with the impugned Supplementary Award dated 08.05.2019 whereunder, additional compensation as per the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2019 was directed to be paid by the ONGC to the land holders.

6. It was vehemently argued by the Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior counsel for the ONGC that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was denuded of the power to amend the Award dated 14.08.2018, which was essentially a consent award by applying the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2018, and the claim of the land holders was nothing but an afterthought. The attention of the Court is invited to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Gujarat) Rules, 2017 to assert with the aid of Rule 9 contained in Chapter-III that the consent once given in the manner prescribed in Form VI before the competent officer, cannot be withdrawn by the land holders.

7. With the aid of Rule 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Gujarat) Rules, 2017 (for short "Gujarat Rules, 2017"), it is submitted by the learned Senior

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top