SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.618 OF 2018

M/S. MODEL ECONOMIC TOWNSHIP LTD. ……Petitioner

VERSUS

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR ..…. Respondent

ORDER

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. In the present case,  pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the

Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  (“the  Act”  for  short)  issued  on  19.05.2008,

followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 26.05.2008 in respect

of  136  acres  of  land,  award  was  declared  on  21.12.2009  granting

compensation @ 25,00,000/- per acre.  Applications seeking reference under

Section 18 of the Act were preferred by many landholders but the petitioner

             SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      2 (formally known as M/s. Reliance Haryana SEZ Limited) holding about 15

acres of land did not prefer any such application.

2. The Reference Court by order dated 16.11.2011 raised compensation

to Rs.41,81,500/-  per  acre,  whereafter  an application was preferred by the

petitioner  on  01.2.2012  seeking  redetermination  of  compensation  under

Section 28-A(1)  of  the  Act.   Said application was allowed on 06.03.2014

granting to the petitioner same benefits in terms of the order of the Reference

Court.  The Collector had proceeded on the footing that no further challenge

was pending and the assessment made by the Reference Court had attained

finality.

3. At the instance of the landholders, in the meantime, the matters had

travelled to the High Court, which enhanced the compensation on 24.05.2016

to Rs.2,80,00,000/- per acre in respect of comparable lands covered under the

same notification. The determination by the High Court was challenged by the

State and the landholders.   Special Leave Petitions filed by State namely SLP

(Civil) CC Nos. 23630-23668 of 2016 titled  State of Haryana and anr etc.

vs.   Moti  Sagar  and  Ors.  Etc.  Etc.  and all  other  connected  matters  were

dismissed by this  Court  on  05.01.2017.   Later,  Civil  Appeal  Nos.  11814-

11864 of 2017 titled State of Haryana  and ors. Etc.  Vs. Ram Chander and

             SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      3 Anr Etc.   preferred by landholders  came to be disposed of  on 05.09.2017

whereunder  this  Court  deducted  15%  towards  development  from  the

compensation awarded by the High Court.  In respect of comparable lands i.e.

lands  from  village  Dhankot  the  compensation  thus  got  reduced  to

2,38,00,000/- per acre.  A separate order was passed in respect of Civil Appeal

No. 15015 of 2017 titled Moti Sagar and ors.  Vs.  State of Haryana and ors.

on 10.10.2017.

4. After  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court,  the  petitioner  filed  CWP

No.23688 of 2016 praying for quashing of the order dated 06.03.2014 and

prayed for redetermination of compensation in terms of the judgment of the

High Court.  It was asserted:

“That the said award dated 06.03.2014, Annexure P- 5, however, has been made in the teeth of the ratio of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babua Ram  v.  State of U.P.; (1995) 2 SCC 689, vide which  it  was  held  that  the  finality  of  the determination  of  compensation  in  a  given  case  of acquisition  and  assessment  of  compensation  is attained with the decree of the appellate court, be it the  Hon’ble  High  Court  of  the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court, and the decree of the trial court gets merged in the  decree  of  the  appellate  court,  which  alone  is executable.   In  the  said  judgment,  the  Hon’ble Supreme Court was, thus, pleased to hold that when an appeal is pending in the High Court or its appellate forum, the learned Collector should stay his hands in

             SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      4 the  meanwhile  in  the  matter  of  redetermination  of compensation till the appeal has been finally disposed of  and he should redetermine the compensation,  in the  cases  of  redetermination  of  the  amount  of compensation on the basis of the said award of the reference  court  only  when  the  final  judgment  and decree of the appellate forum have been made.  In the instant matter also, the first appeals against the said Reference Court Award dated 16.11.2011, Annexure P-3, since were already pending before this Hon’ble Court on the day which the said subject Award dated 06.03.2014,  Annexure  P-5,  was  passed  by  the Respondent, therefore, the Respondent ought to have instead awaited the decision of this Hon’ble Court in those  first  appeals,  before  disposing  of  the  said application  for  redetermination  of  the  amount  of compensation on the basis of the said award of the Court  filed  by  the  Petitioner  immediately,  which exercise  was  in  the  teeth  of  the  aforestated  settled principles of law, as the said Award dated 16.11.2011, Annexure P-3, had not yet attained finality and was a subject matter of appeals before a superior court, i.e. this  Hon’ble  Court.   The  said subject  Award dated 06.03.2014, Annexure P-5, passed by the Respondent was thus a premature attempt of redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court,  contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  Babua  Ram’s  case (supra).”

5. Said Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the High Court on 10.10.2017.  It

was observed by the High Court:

“… … …The petitioner herein is a limited company. Once it  could file application under Section 28A of

             SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      5 the Act just within the time permitted under Section 28A of the Act after the award was announced by the Reference Court, it cannot be claimed that it was not knowing  the  status  of  other  cases  or  the  remedy against  the  award  passed  by  the  Collector  on application under  Section 28A of  the  Act.   Section 28A(3) of the Act provides that in case either of the parties is aggrieved against the award passed by the Collector, it can file application for reference of the dispute to the Court.  The aforesaid remedy was not availed  of  by  the  petitioner.   The  period  thereof expired long back.”

6. The  aforesaid  judgment  dated  10.10.2017  is  presently  under  challenge.

After  hearing  learned  counsel  for  both  sides,  on  06.02.2019  this  Court  posed

certain questions on which response from the petitioner was sought.  The questions

were posed as those factual details were not available on record.  Thereafter, an

affidavit was filed giving answers to said questions as under:-

“4.   That  the  petitioner  submits  the  following response  to  the  issues  in  terms  of  the  aforesaid order dated 06.02.2019:

(a) Whether  any  application  for  reference  was preferred after the disposal of application under Section 28A of the Act?

Response:  No.

(b)  Was the petitioner aware while the application under  Section  28A of  the  Act  was  pending consideration  that  the  appeals  were  preferred and were pending in the appellate court?

             SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      6

Response:  No.

(c) When did the petitioner come to know for the first time about the pendency or disposal of the appeals by the High Court?

Response:  The petitioner never came to know of the pendency of the appeals before the High Court  till  disposal  of  its  application  under Section  28A  on  06.03.2014.   The  petitioner came  to  know about  the  disposal  of  the  said appeals for the first time on 03.08.2016.

The  Petitioner  had  received  a  notice dated  04.07.2016  in  respect  of  one  of  its subsidiary  company  namely  Nemita Commercial Private Limited, under sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894 from the office of the  Land  Acquisition  Collector,  Urban  Estate, Haryana  for  hearing  with  regard  to  land acquisition  pertaining  to  Village  Sihi  Hadbast no.  108,  Tehsil  Manesar,  District Gurgaon/Rewari.   This  land  acquisition  arose out  of  a  notification  under  sec.  4  dated 07.08.2013 and notification under sec. 6 dated 05.08.2014.  This hearing was scheduled to be held on 03.08.2016.

It was during this hearing on 03.08.2016 that  the  representative  of  the  Petitioner,  Shri Satyawan, came to know about the decision of the  Hon’ble  High  Court  dated  24.05.2016  in Moti Sagar & Ors.  v.   State of Haryana and Anr.  (RFA no. 1580 of 2012) filed by the other landowners.   It  is  pertinent  to  note  that  the petitioner’s  application  under  section 28A and the  hearing  held  on  03.08.2016  pertaining  to

             SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      7 Nemita Commercial Private Limited was heard in  the  same  office  of  the  Land  Acquisition Collector.

Thereafter, the Petitioner contacted Shri Shailendra Jain, Sr. Adv.  who had also argued on behalf of the writ petitioners in  Moti Sagar and  engaged  him  to  argue  the  writ  petition bearing  C.W.P.  No.  23688  of  2016  (O&M) challenging the order dated 06.03.2014 whereby the application under section 28A filed by the petitioner was disposed off.  English translation and true copy of the notice dated 04.07.2016 are being  annexed  herewith  and  marked  as ANNEXURE ‘B’ (pages 11 to 13).  In support, the affidavit  of  the aforesaid representative of the Petitioner, Shri Satyawan is also filed along with the present affidavit.

(d)When was  the  writ  petition  filed  in  the  High Court?

Response:  The  petitioner  had  filed  its  writ petition on 15.11.2016.”

7. Relying  on  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Bharatsing   s/o.  Gulabsingh

Jakhad and Ors.  Vs.  State of Maharashtra and Ors.1  it is contended by the

petitioner that the Collector ought to have kept the application under Section 28A

of the Act pending till  the appeals were decided and that for the failure of the

Collector  on that  count,  the  petitioner  ought  not  to  be  put  to  prejudice.   It  is,

1 (2018) 11 SCC 92

             SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      8 therefore,  submitted  that  the  order  dated  06.03.2014  be  set  aside;  the  entire

exercise  under  Section  28A  be  undertaken  de  novo keeping  in  mind  the

compensation as awarded by the High Court (as scaled by this Court later).

8. In Bharatsing1 the award was passed on 04.06.1977.  The Reference Court

allowed enhancement vide decision dated 01.10.1992, whereafter application under

Section 28A of the Act was preferred on 31.12.1992.  Said application was decided

on  25.10.2000  that  is  almost  eight  years  after  the  application  was  preferred.

Around this time, cross appeals preferred by the landholders as well as the State

against the decision of the Reference Court were pending in the High Court.  These

appeals were disposed of by the High Court on 23.03.2009 granting compensation

at  an enhanced rate  of  Rs.18000 per  acre.   Soon thereafter,  second application

under Section 28A of the Act was preferred on 27.05.2009 seeking benefit under

the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009.  This second application came to

be  dismissed  by  the  High  Court.   This  Court  affirmed  the  view  that  second

application under Section 28A could not be preferred but found that the disposal of

the first application under Section 28A on 25.10.2000 was not in conformity with

the law laid down by this Court in  Babua Ram  vs.   State of  U.P.2 and other

2 (1995) 2 SCC 689

             SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      9 subsequent cases.  In the facts of the case, this Court, therefore directed that the

original application preferred on 31.12.1992 be considered afresh.

9. During the pendency of the present matter, this Court had summoned the

original record to apprise itself as to the circumstances in which the application

under Section 28A of the Act was taken up for consideration by the Collector.  The

record indicates that the Collector was given to understand that no appeal or further

challenge was pending consideration before any superior court and that the matter

had attained finality.

10. It is neither the case of the petitioner nor it is even remotely contended that

despite being aware of such pending challenge, the Collector had proceeded with

the matter and decided the application under Section 28A.  It is also not the case

that the petitioner had made the Collector aware or brought it to the notice of the

office about pendency of such matter/further challenge.  The petitioner approached

the High Court on 15.11.2016 only after the compensation was enhanced by the

High Court to the level of Rs.2,80,00,000/- per acre in respect of comparable lands

vide judgment dated 24.5.2016.  Again, there is nothing in the petition as to why

the  petitioner  took  so  much  time  to  realise  that  the  course  undertaken  by  the

Collector was not in keeping with the principles laid down by this Court.  Looking

             SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      10 to the profile of the petitioner which is a limited company, it can certainly be said

to be having resources to equip itself with adequate knowledge on the front.    The

explanation  offered  by  the  petitioner  in  the  affidavit  pursuant  to  the  direction

issued on 06.02.2019, in our view, is not satisfactory.  The explanation that the

petitioner became aware for the first  time on 03.08.2016 does not appear to be

correct and reliable.  Again, if Shri Satyawan who swore the affidavit as whole-

time  Director  of  the  petitioner-company,  was  aware  on  03.08.2016  that  the

compensation stood enhanced by the High Court vide judgment and order dated

24.05.2016, there is no reason why the filing of the writ petition was delayed till

15.11.2016.  For an entity who held more than 10% of the land under acquisition

the  way  it  conducted  itself  does  not  inspire  any  confidence.   The  idea  under

Section 28A is certainly to extend benefit of equal compensation to landholders

who, for some reasons had not preferred appropriate applications for Reference in

time but for a company having profile such as the petitioner, inaction on the front

followed by delay in filing petition in the High Court, in our view, disentitles the

petitioner from claiming any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

             SLP(C)No.618 of 2018               M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd.  Vs.  Land Acquisition Collector

                                      11

11. The High Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the petition.  We see no

reason to interfere.  This Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

………..…..……..……J.                                                                                (Uday Umesh Lalit)

..………….……………J.                                 (Hemant Gupta)

New Delhi, February 26, 2019.