Niraj Jain vs Competent Authority Cum Additional Collector, Jagdalpur

2026 INSC 86 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No………...of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.7061 of 2025)

Niraj Jain ….Appellant Versus Competent Authority-cum-Additional Collector, Jagdalpur & Ors. ….Respondents 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.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2026.01.27

3. Two sets of litigation arose with respect to the acquisition of 15:55:46 IST Reason:

land in the State of Chhattisgarh for a Special Rail Project, notified on

Page 1 of 10 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025 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, 20161 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

1 for short, the Rules of 2016

Page 2 of 10 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025 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

Page 3 of 10 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025 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. Brijender Chahar, learned Additional Solicitor

General, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Tushar

Mehta, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The appellant

asserts that there is neither identity of allegations nor is there any

Page 4 of 10 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025 taint alleged, with respect to the award passed in favour of the

appellant herein, who was also not proceeded against by the

Railways. Based on the inquiry report proceedings were taken only

with respect to five people to invalidate the arbitral award as against

them. There was a total of 550 land owners who were the

beneficiaries of the award. But for the named individuals against

whom allegations were raised and proceedings were taken, both by

putting into motion the criminal law and the writ petition filed for

setting aside the award, the award remained undisturbed. The award

and its cancellation was in the writ petition of the Railways in which

the appellant or the numerous other land owners/beneficiaries were

not made parties.

8. For the Railways, it is contended that the impugned order

confirming the judgment in the writ petition, setting aside the initial

award and the arbitral award has been challenged by the affected

parties, the land owners, before this Court in a Special Leave Petition

(SLP) and, hence, the consideration of the present SLP be kept in

abeyance till the other SLP is heard.

9. After hearing the arguments addressed and looking at the

records, we are not convinced that the pendency of the SLP filed

Page 5 of 10 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025 against Annexure P-8 and P-9 orders, has any bearing on the

contentions alleged by the appellant herein. Admittedly, the report

of the Collector against the award, resulted in the freezing of

accounts of named land owners who were disbursed with excessive

amounts and FIRs were lodged against the government officers, who

acted in abuse of their powers and the land owners, who were

alleged to have obtained such unjust enrichment in collusion with the

revenue officials. The appellant herein was not a land owner who was

proceeded against based on the inquiry report, either for the

purpose of freezing of account or arrayed as an accused in the FIR

lodged. When the affected government officers and the land owners

filed writ petitions against; the inquiry report, the freezing order and

the criminal proceedings, the respondent-Railways also filed a writ

petition impleading the officers of the government in their official

capacity and the party respondent Nos.6 to 10, who were alleged to

have obtained the excessive award amounts. None of the other land

owners were impleaded, which even as per the records indicates that

the acquisition was from a total of 550 land owners. Only five were

impleaded in the writ petition from amongst the 550 and the tabular

column, as indicated in the Annexure P-8 judgment, as projected by

Page 6 of 10 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025 the respondent Railways in their writ petition, showed seven persons

of which six had obtained compensation in excess of the actual land

value. Two persons who were shown in the table to have obtained

excessive compensation were not impleaded in the writ petition and

one person who even as per the inquiry report had obtained less than

that actual dues to her, was also impleaded. We are not concerned

with the said parties since, as rightly submitted, their challenge is

pending in the SLP. Since the appellant herein had not been

proceeded against for refund or by a prosecution launched, the

result of the SLP filed by the others who were specifically proceeded

against by the Railways would be of no consequence in the present

case.

10. In this context, we specifically notice the contention of the

respondent Railways recorded by the Division Bench in Annexure P-

9, the judgment in the other set of cases, wherein it has been

categorically stated that, “the award passed by the competent

authority is null and void with respect to the respondents Bali

Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya and others, as the award was

illegally determined against the provisions of law, against the

guidelines for market price for the year 2017-18 and that the

Page 7 of 10 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025 determination of the compensation in favour of the respective parties,

who have been illegally benefited is the result of commission of

offences regarding which, F.I.R. has been lodged” (sic para 37 of

Annexure P-11). There was also no averment that the respondents 6

to 10 impleaded there in, were so impleaded in a representative

capacity nor could such a plea be taken since the individual

beneficiaries cannot be represented by a few of them.

11. Hence, the claim of excessive compensation having been

awarded and disbursed, even according to the Railways is confined

to the party respondents in the earlier proceedings and the result of

the SLP filed against the writ appeal judgment is of no legal or lethal

consequence in the present case. We cannot but observe that while

the arbitral award and the initial award were set aside the learned

Single Judge ought to have noticed that the challenge is only against

the five respondents impleaded therein and the setting aside, can

affect only them.

12. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, we find absolutely no

such claim having been raised at that point of time. Even the order

keeping in abeyance the determination and disbursement of the

enhanced amounts or the later order, recalling the enhancement

Page 8 of 10 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025 does not factually refer to any such allegations having been raised in

the inquiry report of the Collector against the award, qua the

appellant herein. Nor has it found any identity of cause or similarity

in quantum or an unjust enrichment based on the prevailing market

value, insofar as the appellant is concerned.

13. We cannot but notice that the Railways also have not challenged

the arbitral award dated 28.06.2019 passed in favour of the appellant

which could have been done even when it was kept in abeyance.

Pertinent also is the fact that the Railways Act of 1989 does not confer

any power to review, on the Competent Authority authorized by the

Central Government or the Arbitrator appointed under the Rules of

2016.

14. We find the High Court to have egregiously erred in not

interfering with the impugned orders. The judgment in writ appeal

and that in the writ petition impugned herein are set aside. Annexure

P-7 order, keeping in abeyance the enhanced compensation, as

awarded by the Arbitrator and Annexure P-9 order issued by the

Commissioner, Bastar Division, cancelling the earlier award and

concluding the proceedings are both set aside. The initial award as

on 12.02.2018 passed in favour of the appellant and the enhancement

Page 9 of 10 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025 granted by the Arbitrator on 28.02.2019 stands restored. The entire

award amounts, deducting what has already been granted, with

interest and solatium as applicable till the date of disbursement, shall

be disbursed within a period of three months.

15. The appeal stands allowed.

16. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

.……………………………... J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

..………….…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 27, 2026.

Page 10 of 10 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.7061 of 2025