RANVEER SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECY. .
Bench: SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,A.M. KHANWILKAR
Case number: C.A. No.-013324-013324 / 2015
Diary number: 24781 / 2014
Advocates: DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs
Page 1
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13324 OF 2015
Ranveer Singh …..Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Through Secy. & Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. This appeal arising out of special leave has been
preferred by the original writ petitioner whose land was
acquired by the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh under
the provisions of Land Acquisitions Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred as ‘the Act’) on the basis of an agreement for
compensation dated 27.2.2003 followed by instant payment of
such compensation. The appellant subsequently claimed
interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date 15.2.2001
when admittedly the possession of the land was taken over by
the State Authorities and till 27.2.2003, the date of payment.
1
Page 2
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
The claim was rejected by the concerned District Magistrate of
Gautam Budh Nagar vide an order dated 6.8.2005 passed
pursuant to order of High Court dated 12.04.2005 in
appellant’s earlier writ petition No.38951 of 2002. That claim
again made through subsequent writ petition bearing No.
60992 of 2005 has been rejected on merits by the judgment
and order under appeal passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 22.5.2014.
2. There is no material dispute over facts and hence it
would suffice to notice that as per pleadings of the parties,
appellant’s land in Plot No. 203, area 30 bigha 12 biswa and
plot No. 209, area 1 biswa in village Parthala, Khanjarpur
District Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) was acquired by issuing
notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 dated
1.6.2000 and a declaration under Section 6 dated 30.12.2000
of the Act. The possession of the land was taken on 15.2.2001.
After taking possession, proceedings for determination of
payment of compensation on the basis of agreement was
initiated. On account of information received by the
Additional District Magistrate Land Acquisition Noida, Gautam
2
Page 3
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
Budh Nagar from DGC (Civil) that appellant had land in excess
of the ceiling limit, inquiries and opinion for entering into an
agreement became necessary. Ultimately on 7.2.2003 it
became clear that appellant had no land in excess of the
ceiling area and that cleared the path for signing the
agreement on 27.2.2003 for payment of compensation in
terms of agreement as per Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition
(Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by
Agreement) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules
of 1997”). As agreed, the entire compensation of
Rs.1,37,58,350/- was paid on the same date. The appellant
accepted the said amount without any demur or protest. At
that time the earlier writ petition No.38951 of 2002 for
claiming compensation was pending. Claim for interest under
Section 34 was subsequently added in that writ petition
through an amendment. The writ petition was disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to file a representation and as noticed
earlier the same was rejected by the District Magistrate by a
speaking order dated 6.8.2005.
3
Page 4
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
3. In the aforesaid facts the sole issue for determination
remains as to whether, after entering into an agreement under
the Rules of 1997 and accepting the agreed amount without
any protest or demand for further interest, the appellant can
claim interest on the ground of Section 34 of the Act for the
period that had already lapsed between taking of possession
and signing of the agreement/payment of compensation.
Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as under:-
“ 34. Payment of interest - When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited:
[Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.]”
4. The appellant relied heavily upon the aforesaid provision
of law to support his claim for interest. In addition, learned
senior counsel has raised a plea based on equity that there is
4
Page 5
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
no good reason why the appellant should not be compensated
for loss of possession when there is a considerable delay in
entering into agreement and payment of compensation. It has
been further urged that the District Magistrate has erred in
rejecting the representation of the appellant. On the other
hand, learned counsel for the respondent has defended the
judgment of the High Court by submitting that it suffers from
no error of fact or law. He pointed out that as per the
agreement, the appellant accepted to receive the consolidated
amount which included components of additional amount at
the rate of 12% and solatium at the rate of 30% contemplated
under various sub-sections of Section 23 of the Act and
thereafter in the same agreement, as an owner he agreed that
he shall not claim any amount in addition to the amount
agreed upon as disclosed in the agreement as compensation
and accepted the amount without any protest. The relevant
clause 3 in the agreement is as follows:
“Clause 3.- That the owner and the interested party shall not claim any amount in addition to the amount agreed upon as aforesaid as compensation and accept it without any protest.”
5
Page 6
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
5. It has been also urged by the learned counsel for the
State that the appellant was free to take benefit of all
provisions of the Act including Section 34 by opting for an
usual award under Section 11(1) of the Act but instead he
chose to accept the expeditious route of entering into an
agreement and getting the payment immediately as per the
Rules of 1997. Thereafter, as per agreement he is debarred
from claiming any further amount or to raise any protest
before any forum on any basis, including on account of
interest.
6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance upon the judgment in the case of Shree Vijay Cotton
& Oil Mills Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat1, particularly Paragraph
14 thereof. In paragraph 14 this court pointed out the failure
of the high Court in not appreciating the mandatory provisions
of Section 34 of the Act. That was a case of ordinary
acquisition as per provisions of the Act wherein amount of
compensation was determined in regular manner and not by
any agreement. Further, there was no resort to urgency
1 1991 (1) SCC 262
6
Page 7
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
clause in terms of Section 17 of the Act nor there was any
issue as to entitlement of interest under Section 34. The claim
had been wrongly denied by the District Judge on a reference
under Section 18 and the High Court also rejected the same
by dismissing the cross objections as barred by limitation and
on principle of res judicata. This Court, in the facts of that
case held that the land owner was entitled for interest as per
mandatory provisions of Section 34 of the Act. But the defence
in the present case is entirely different and is not affected by
the aforesaid judgment.
7. On behalf of the respondent-State reliance has been
placed upon the following two judgments (1) State of Gujarat
and Ors. Vs. Daya Shamji Bhai and Ors.2 and (2) State of
Karnataka and Anr. vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and
Ors. 3.
8. In Daya Shamji Bhai after the notification for acquisition
under Section 4(1), the land owners agreed in writing to accept
the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer
along with 25% enhancement. With such consent they also
2 1995 (5) SCC 746 3 2005(4) SCC 264
7
Page 8
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
agreed that they will not go to any court under Section 18 of
the Act. Accordingly the land owners were paid in terms of the
agreement. In spite of such agreement the land owners sought
a reference to which the State objected. The reference court
rejected the contention of the State on the ground that the
agreements were not registered under the Registration Act and
the land owners could not contract out from statute. In the
background facts noted above this Court held in favour of the
State that the agreement was permitted under sub-section 2 of
Section 11 which gives right to the parties to enter into an
agreement to receive compensation under Section 11 in terms
of the contract. Such contract was held to be conclusive and
binding on the parties and therefore the land owners were not
entitled to seek any reference for enhancement of the
compensation. It was clarified that when compensation is
received under protest only then Section 18 gets attracted. In
paragraph 8 of the report the issue of awarding interest and
statutory benefits was also decided against the land owners in
following terms:-
8
Page 9
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
“8. The question of awarding interest and statutory benefits arises when the civil court finds that the amount of compensation awarded to the landowners by the Collector is not adequate and the prevailing market value is higher than the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 23(1). For entitlement to solatium under Section 23(2) “in addition to” market value the court shall award solatium. Under Section 28, if the court gets power to award interest, when court opines that the Collector “ought to have awarded compensation in excess of the sum which the Collector did award (sic) the compensation”. In other words, valid reference under Section 18 confers jurisdiction on the civil court to consider whether the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and fair. Thereafter, when it finds that the Collector ought to have awarded higher compensation, the civil court gets jurisdiction to award statutory benefits on higher compensation from the date of taking possession only. In view of the specific contract made by the respondents in terms of Section 11(2), they are not entitled to seek a reference. Consequently, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to go into the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector or prevailing market value as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) to determine the compensation under Section 23(1) and to grant statutory benefits.” (emphasis added)
9. In Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar reliance was placed
upon Daya Shamji Bhai and the same principles were
reiterated by holding that an application for reference to civil
court is maintainable only if there is non-acceptance of the
award by the awardee. Once parties agree to the compensation
9
Page 10
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
payable and consent award is passed, the same would bind
the parties unless it is set aside in appropriate proceedings by
a court of competent jurisdiction. The consent award accepted
without protest extinguishes the legal right to maintain a
reference for enhancement of compensation, more so when the
land owners agreed not to seek any enhancement. In that case
also the land owners had agreed that they would not approach
any court for enhancement of compensation and had received
the amount of compensation in terms of the consent award in
full satisfaction of their claim. After being unsuccessful before
the reference court and in writ petition before the Single
Judge, the land owners got relief by the Division Bench of the
High Court on the ground that in any event they could not be
deprived of their statutory right of obtaining solatium and
interest in terms of the Act. The High Court’s direction for
payment on the basis of such statutory provisions was set
aside by this Court by holding that applications under Section
18 were not maintainable. The land owners having accepted
the award, were estopped from maintaining the applications.
This Court further held that the High Court also had no
10
Page 11
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
jurisdiction under Article 226 to substitute the consent award
by directing payment of statutory solatium and interest. It
flows from this judgment that by virtue of the agreement, right
to receive solatium and interest can be waived. Further, when
the land owners agreed that they would not seek enhancement
of compensation by claiming any amount in addition to the
amount agreed upon and that they would accept the agreed
amount without any protest, the High Court could not have
substituted the award by permitting further enhancement on
any ground.
10. The main thrust of arguments advanced on the behalf of
the appellant, particularly to get rid of the difficulty in his way
on account of the aforesaid two judgments is that the land
owner agreed not to claim any amount beyond the agreed
amount as compensation and therefore the appellant is free to
claim any further amount as interest under Section 34 of the
Act because such interest is not and cannot be included as a
component of compensation which is determined by the
Collector under Section 11 of the Act while making the award.
Further submission on behalf of the appellant is that various
11
Page 12
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
matters which require consideration in determining
compensation by court under Section 23 of the Act do not
include interest contemplated by the Section 34 of the Act
which is payable when the compensation is not paid or
deposited on or before taking the possession to the land.
11. On its face the aforesaid contentions appears to be
attractive but on a closer analysis of Section 11 as well as
Section 23 it is found to have no merits. Section 23 is for
guidance of the court which gets jurisdiction to determine
compensation afresh only if there is a protest against the
award and the payment is received with protest. This section
does not control the determination of just compensation by the
Collector under Section 11 which requires the Collector to
enquire into objections (if any) on different issues such as
measurement and interests of the person claiming
compensation and then further requires the collector to make
an award which is required to reflect, interalia, “the
compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the
land.” But it is more appropriate and relevant to notice
sub-section 2 of Section 11 which is as follows:
12
Page 13
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.”
This sub-section begins with a non-obstante clause
which makes it free of the requirements of sub-section (1) if all
the persons interested in the land agree in writing as to what
matters should be included in the award of the Collector.
Thereupon the Collector is competent to make an award as per
agreement without making further enquiry. In view of such
clear provision that permits agreement to determine all the
matters to be included in the award, all the inclusions and
omissions in the consent award must be treated as based
upon agreement of the parties and the final amount
determined by way of agreement must be taken as a
completely just compensation inclusive of the statutory
interest payable to the claimant for the concerned land at least
on the date of agreement. Since the agreed compensation
amount is accepted without protest with a clear stipulation
13
Page 14
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
not to claim any additional amount, it has to be deemed that
the compensation reflected in the consent award has taken
into account all relevant factors including interest till the date
of agreement. Moreover the right to seek reference for
enhancement itself gets lost by accepting the compensation
without protest especially when there is an agreement that the
land owner shall not claim any amount in addition to the
amount agreed upon as compensation and shall accept the
compensation without any protest. In such circumstances
agreed amount has to be treated as a just compensation
permitting no addition or substitution whatsoever. In other
words, not only the remedy under the Act of seeking
enhancement is lost but the substantive cause of action also
vanishes when the land owner agrees for a consent award and
the amount of compensation is accepted without any protest.
12. Equitable considerations also cannot help the appellant
because the agreed amount was paid without any delay, on
the date of agreement itself. Notably, the award passed on the
basis of agreement with the appellant stipulates the amount of
compensation at Rs. 329.76 per Sq.Yd. However, in the case of
14
Page 15
C.A.No.13324 of 2015
other claimants under the same Notification who had not
entered into such agreement, the rate was fixed at Rs. 50.57
per Sq.Yd. with 30% solatium and 12% interest from the date
of taking possession. Thus, the agreement with the appellant
was a package with regard to the compensation amount
voluntarily accepted by the appellant without any demur. The
argument of equitable consideration is, therefore, misplaced
and ill-advised.
13. In view of aforesaid discussion and particularly in view of
judgments of this Court in the case of Daya Shamji Bhai and
in Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar, we find no error in the order
of the High Court rejecting the claim of the appellant. As a
result the appeal must fail. It is therefore dismissed but
without costs.
………………………………..…….J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
………………………………….…..J.
[A.M. KHANWILKAR] New Delhi. July 22, 2016.
15