Mitesh Kumar Ramanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 19501-19503 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 21067-21069 of 2014)

MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 19504-19506 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25806-25808 of 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 19522-19524 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 15676-15678 of 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 19507-19509 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 528-530 of 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 19513-19515 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2302-2304 of 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL No(s).19516-19518 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12813-12815 of 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL No(s).19510-19512 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 552-554 of 2015)

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2017.11.21 16:23:04 IST Reason: 2

CIVIL APPEAL No(s).19519-19521 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12819-12821 of 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 19538-19540 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 555-557 of 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 19525-19527 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 36249-36251 of 2015)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. An unusual factual matrix exists in the

instant cases. Though, the consent agreements were

entered into in the year 1989 for handing over the

land in the case of acquisition on a particular

value prevailing at the relevant time was

purportedly mentioned. However, for approximately

seven years, the State Government did not choose to

issue Notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'). It was

issued on 7.6.1996 and Consent Awards were passed on

12.6.1997 and 5.8.1997 on the basis of consent forms

which were obtained in 1989. Possession had also 3

been taken in 1989. It appears that 80 to 90%

compensation had been disbursed to the incumbent at

the time to taking possession in 1989. Thereafter

it appears that rent was also paid in lieu of

occupation. In 1995 reference was sought,

application was kept pending, then notification

under Section 4 was issued in 1946 and also

declaration under Section 6 of the Act in 1997. Then

consent awards were passed in 1997 reference was

again sought that was ultimately made and reference

court had determined compensation. The High Court

had set aside the judgment of the reference court on

the ground that no reference under section 18 was

maintainable once acquisition was with consent.

3. The counsel for the appellant urged that fraud

was played on the land owners and on blank consent

forms signatures were obtained. It was not possible

to fill dates of events in consent forms which took

place in 1996 and 1997. The consent forms even if

executed were rendered unenforceable. It would be

unfair to permit State functionaries to use the

consent forms after 8 years as such the judgment

passed by the reference court be restored. 4

4. Learned counsel for the State contended that

in view of consent awards no reference could have

been sought. The possession was taken after payment

of 80% to 90% of compensation agreed to in 1989,

then for occupation of land rent was also paid to

owners and ultimately after issuance of notification

under Section 4 and other formalities the award was

passed in the year 1997. In the facts of the case

no interference was called for with impugned

judgment passed in the High Court.

5. A perusal of the consent form reveals that in

the consent forms most of the columns were kept

blank as it was not possible to mention subsequent

events, and thereafter, date of notification under

Section 4 of the Act and the date of declaration

under Section 6 of the Act had been mentioned

afterwards that too immediately before Award was

passed which could not have been done unilaterally.

6. The facts indicate that in the year 1995, a

premature prayer was made by landowners to make a

reference as they felt that the consent forms were

kept blank and it was assured to them that they

would be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.50 per 5

Square Meter. However, said amount was not

mentioned in the Agreement and figure of Rs.3.12 per

square meter was mentioned in the blank forms. Be

that as it may, even if 3.12 per square meter was

agreed to, would not make much difference as to

enforceability if such agreements. It appears that

the reference court in the year 1995 directed the

land owners to furnish the particulars of their

holdings which was the subject matter of the consent

Agreements. On failure to furnish particulars by the

next date of hearing, the proceedings were closed

sine die. Thus, the conduct of the land owners of

filing application in 1995 clearly indicated that

they were not willing to go by the consent agreement

executed in the year 1989. Thus in all fairness the

blank forms should not have been used for passing

awards on consent basis.

7. It would be highly unfair in the facts of the

instant case to ask the land owners to abide by the

consent terms executed way back in the year 1989 and

to hand over land to State Government at the rate,

which prevailed in 1989. The State Government had

not taken the steps for seven years for acquisition 6

of the land by issuance of the Notification under

Section 4 of the Act. It was a sine qua non to issue

notification under Section 4 of the Act to acquire

land even with consent. After obtaining consent

forms and possession, the State Government had

waited for more than seven years and thereafter only

in the year 1996 Notification under Section 4 of the

Act was issued and consent awards were passed in the

year 1997. Remaining 10% t0 20% amount was not

paid. Ultimately as directed by the High Court the

reference was made to the District Court. The

reference court had rightly enhanced the

compensation and then the matter travelled to the

High Court in appeal filed by the State Government

and cross objection by land owners for enhancement.

At that time by way of interim order, direction was

given to State to deposit the amount. The matter of

interim order travelled to this Court and this court

directed that amount be paid to the land owners as

per determination made by the reference court.

Pursuant to the order passed in the year 2011 amount

had been disbursed to the land owners which was

determined by the reference court at the rate of 7

Rs.21.48 per square Meter that too after filing of

Contempt Petition.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case,

the reference court was right in awarding the

compensation on the market price which prevailed in

the year 1997. In our opinion, though it was open to

the State Government to enter into an agreement

before issuance of the Notification under Section 4

of the Act, as held by this court in Ishwarlal

Premchand Shah & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1996

SC 1616, in which the agreements were entered into

three years before. However, in the peculiar facts

of these cases, it is apparent that the State

Government could not have waited for seven years

after the consent forms were obtained in 1989 at

particular rate prevailing at relevant time to make

acquisition in the year 1996 and it would be totally

unjust to pass consent awards on the basis of almost

blank consent forms obtained in the year 1989. The

relevant date of determination of compensation is

the date of issuance of notification under Section 4

of the Act. It was incumbent upon the State 8

Government to obtain fresh consent forms in view of

repudiation made in 1995 the way of filing

application before Land Acquisition Collector,

whether the land owners were willing, due to lapse

of time, to hand over the land in 1997 at the rate

which prevailed in the year 1989 but that was not so

done in the instant cases. Thus we are of the

considered opinion that reference was rightly made

and reference could not be said to be not

maintainable as the land owners way back in the year

1995 had submitted the application that they were

not satisfied with the validity and correctness of

the Agreement and again immediately they had filed

applications seeking reference when consent award

was passed. In the fact of the case it could not be

said that land owners consented in 1996/ 1997 for

acquisition at the rate of 1989. It could not have

been termed to be a consent award in the eye of law.

9. In the circumstances, we are of the considered

opinion that the Reference court was justified in

making the determination of the compensation at the

rate of Rs.21.48/- per square meter and that was

appropriate compensation to be awarded to the land 9

owners. Merely payment of the meagre rent to the

land owners for the occupation, would not come to

the rescue of the respondents not to pay the actual

value of the land that prevailed in 1996. There was

deprivation of possession and usufruct for 7/8 years

that could not have been compensated in terms of

meagre rent, in the peculiar facts and circumstances

of the cases.

10. We set aside the impugned judgment passed by

the High Court restore the judgment passed by the

reference court. The appeals are allowed. The

compensation has already been paid. In case any

amount remains unpaid, the same shall be paid within

a period of three months from today. The costs are

quantified at Rs.10,000/- in each case that shall be

paid by the respondents to each of the appellants

within the aforesaid period.

................J. (ARUN MISHRA)

................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 16, 2017.

10

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.10 SECTION III

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21067-21069/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-05-2014 in FA No. 234/2012 01-05-2014 in FA No. 2157/2010 01-05-2014 in CRO No. 41/2013 passed by the High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad)

MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH SLP(C) No. 25806-25808/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 15676-15678/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 528-530/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 2302-2304/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 12813-12815/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 552-554/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 12819-12821/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 555-557/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 36249-36251/2014 (III)

Date : 16-11-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anirudh Sharma, AOR Mr. A. Parikh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, Adv.

Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Mrs. jesal Wahi, Adv.

Ms. Puja Singh, Adv.

Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Adv.

11 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set

aside and the judgment passed by the reference court is restored.

The appeals are allowed. The compensation has already been paid.

In case any amount remains unpaid, the same shall be paid within a

period of three months from today. The costs are quantified at

Rs.10,000/- in each case that shall be paid by the respondents to

each of the appellants within the aforesaid period.

Pending application, if any shall stand disposed of.

(NEELAM GULATI) (JAGDISH CHANDER) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

(SIGNED REPORTABLE ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)