2024 Supreme(Online)(Sikk) 27

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Biswanath Somadder, CJ, Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J
Karma Tshering Bhutia – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
W.A. No. 07 of 2023

Compensation computed under urgency provisions is an estimate for immediate possession, not an award. If no final award under the predecessor legislation is passed, land acquisition proceedings are subject to the compensation determination provisions of the successor legislation under Section 24.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9, 11, 17, 17(3A) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Acquisition procedure - Distinction between estimated compensation and award - Urgency clause - When urgency clause is invoked, compensation estimated under Section 17(3A) does not constitute award under Section 11 - Mandatory requirement of passing award under Section 11 remains - Failure to pass award under Section 11 when acquisition proceedings are initiated under the 1894 act mandates application of 2013 act under Section 24 for compensation determination. (Paras 11, 21, 22, 23, 26)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of review - Interference with impugned order is justified when critical statutory provisions regarding computation of compensation are overlooked by the court below. (Paras 2, 13)

Facts of the case:
Land was acquired invoking urgency provisions. Authorities computed estimated compensation under the 1894 act and paid 80% to the landowner. The lower court treated this statement of compensation as a formal award, but the appellate court examined the statutory scheme, determining that no formal award was passed under section 11 of the 1894 act.

Findings of Court:
The high court held that the statement of compensation prepared under the urgency provisions is merely an estimate to facilitate immediate acquisition and does not possess the legal status of an award under section 11, which requires a formal enquiry into objections.

Issues: Whether a statement of compensation computed under the urgency provisions of the 1894 act qualifies as a final award, and whether the 2013 act applies if no award under the 1894 act is passed.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory requirement for an award under Section 11 mandates a formal enquiry following public notice. Estimated compensation under Section 17(3A) does not substitute this process, as the former is an estimate for immediate possession, while the latter is a final adjudication of value and interest. Because no final award was passed under the 1894 act, compensation must be determined pursuant to the 2013 act.

Result: Appeal allowed; Impugned judgment set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of acquisition proceedings and the dispute over the status of compensation statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. distinction between estimated compensation under section 17(3a) and a final award under section 11 of the 1894 act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
3. application of the 2013 act for compensation determination where no formal 1894 act award exists. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)

J U D G M E N T

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1.The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2023, disposing two connected writ petitions, was primarily on the opinion that the statement of compensation computed on 31.05.2013 was not an award and the State respondents had failed to explain the law under which compensation was computed and prepared.

2. The impugned judgment holding that the statement of compensation computed on 31.05.2013 was in fact the award, is based on the premise that there was no provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, Act of 1894) under which such statements of compensation which had all the trappings of an award could be computed. This was incorrect. The relevant provision was not examined as it was not placed by the parties. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere with the impugned judgment for reasons stated below.

3. Writ Petition (C) no. 32 of 2018 preferred by Karma Tshering Bhutia (the appellant herein) was dismissed and Writ Petition (C) 43 of 2022 preferred by College of Agriculture Engineering and Post Harvest Technology (for short, CAEPHT) (the respondent no.4 herein), was allowed.

4. The appellant had prayed for release of compensation amount as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, Act of 2013); payment of interest at 10% per annum on balance compensation amount unpaid until final payment; and for rehabilitation and resettlement of the appellant and his family members who were displaced.

5. CAEPHT in their writ petition had prayed for quashing of memo no. 1748/LR & DMD/GOS/ACQ/317- 318 dated 12.08.2017; memo no.1748/LR & DMD/ACQ/GOS/418 dated 20.09.2017; and memo no. 1748/LR & DMD/2018/681 dated “Nil” 2018. These memos were issued by the respondent no.3 forwarding rectified details of compensation to CAEPHT.

6. Both the writ petitions arose from an acquisition proceeding under the Act of 1894.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned senior counsel for the CAEPHT and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents.

8. The admitted facts reflect:

Date	Events
22.08.2008 29.11.2008 10.06.2009	CAEPHT requested the State for additional land in Ranipool.
12.09.2012 CAEPHT	sought administrative clarification regarding purchase of land and the correct procedure to be followed for purchase of land from willing local persons.
05.09.2012 Karma Tshering Bhutia offered his	land for sale to CAEPHT.
18.05.2013	Preliminary notification under Section 4 was issued notifying the land of Karma Tshering Bhutia being needed for public purpose invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act of 1894.
	31.05.2013 Statement of compensation for land and other standing properties as assessed by respondent no.2 was forwarded to the respondent no.4 requesting for release of 80% advance payment for making payment to land owners.
	03.08.2013 The declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published.
01.11.2013	The respondent no.3 conveyed to respondent no.2 the government’s approval under Section 7 of the Act of 1894 for the construction of the Central Agricultural University by respondent no.4 requesting respondent no.2 to proceed as per Act of 1894.
25.11.2013	Public notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 published calling upon interested persons to appear personally or by agent before the respondent no.2 on or before 12.12.2013 and state in writing the nature of their respective interest in the land and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document