.1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 251-252 of 2021
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.14266-14267 of 2019)
ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GILLAPUKRI TEA COMPANY LIMITED
& ORS. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited has
filed these appeals challenging the judgment and order in Writ
Appeal Nos. 219 & 220 of 2017 dated 14.03.2019 whereby the
Division Bench of the High Court of Guwahati has dismissed the
2
said appeals confirming the order of the Learned Single Judge in
Review Petition Nos. 79 & 80 of 2016.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as
under.
4. In order to set up a plastic park, the Government of Assam
decided to acquire a portion of the land belonging to the first
respondent situated at Gillapukri Tea Estate, Village Gillapukri,
Tinsukia, Assam. The Government of Assam, in exercise of the
power vested in it under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short ‘L.A. Act’) issued a notification dated
04.08.2008, which was published in the Assam Gazette on
08.08.2008, expressing its intention to acquire 1,166 biggas, 1
katha, 14 lessas of land of the aforesaid Gillapukri Tea Estate.
The proceedings being L.A Case No. 1 of 2008 were also
initiated for the purpose of acquisition before the District
Collector, Tinsukia and, for that purpose, declaration dated
17.06.2009 in terms of Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act was
published in the Assam Gazette. The appellant was appointed
as the nodal agency to deal with the acquisition proceedings
vide appointment letter dated 24.06.2009.
3
5. The Deputy Commissioner and Collector, District Tinsukia,
addressed a letter dated 30.01.2010 to the Principal Secretary
to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department to seek
approval of the award and the land acquisition estimate which
were enclosed therewith in the prescribed Form No. 15 and
Form No. 5 respectively. In response, the Commissioner and
Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department,
addressed a letter dated 05.03.2010 to the Deputy
Commissioner whereby approval, as sought vide the aforesaid
letter dated 30.01.2010, was granted. As will be seen in the
following paragraphs, the controversy between the parties
before us is whether this letter was approval of both the award
and the estimate or only the estimate. Thereafter, the owner of
the land, i.e. the first respondent herein, addressed a letter
dated 05.05.2010 to the Commissioner seeking reference of the
matter to the District Judge, Tinsukia, under Section 18 of the
L.A. Act for reassessment of the compensation awarded to it. It
is contended that other similar applications were also received
from different families at different levels. It is further contended
that in the letter dated 05.05.2010, the first respondent
admitted that it had received a sum of Rs. 4.95 crores on
4
08.04.2010 by a crossed cheque immediately after the letter
for approval dated 05.03.2010 was passed by the
Commissioner. It is also contended that vide possession
certificate dated 21.05.2010, possession was delivered to the
Deputy Commissioner, and thereafter on 11.06.2010,
possession of the land was handed over to the appellant by the
Deputy Commissioner.
6. The first respondent has not disputed the issuance of the
preliminary and final notification. However, it is contended that
no award was approved pursuant to the letter dated
05.03.2010. It is the first respondent’s case that vide this letter,
only the land acquisition estimate was approved and not the
award. This, in the first respondent’s view, led to lapsing of the
proceedings and initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in
2012 which culminated in approval of the award for the first
time on 04.01.2014. For this purpose, a fresh notification under
Section 4 of the L.A. Act was published on 07.08.2012 and a
declaration was also issued on 20.11.2012. Thereafter, the
Commissioner issued a notice purportedly under Section 9 of
the L.A. Act to the persons interested in the land to submit their
objections and claims. On 04.01.2014, a fresh award was
5
passed and the Deputy Secretary, Government of Assam,
Revenue Department addressed a letter dated 06.01.2014 to
the Deputy Commissioner conveying approval of the said fresh
award. The first respondent contends that a comparison of this
approval letter dated 06.01.2014 with the approval letter dated
05.03.2010 under the original acquisition proceedings would
clearly indicate that under the letter dated 05.03.2010, only the
estimate was approved and not the award. Since the award
under the fresh proceedings was approved and made after
coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘2013 Act’), the first
respondent approached the Deputy Commissioner to seek a
fresh award by determining the compensation payable in terms
of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.
7. The first respondent has denied the claim of the appellant
that an award had been approved on 05.03.2010 and has
mainly rested its case on the letter dated 21.07.2012
addressed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Assam,
Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner wherein the
Deputy Secretary admitted to not having drawn the award
6
within two years from the date of publication of the declaration
under the original acquisition proceedings. The first respondent
has also relied upon the letter dated 06.01.2014 sent by the
Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam which, as per
the first respondent, suggests that no award had been
approved under the original acquisition proceedings.
8. On the contrary, the State Government has taken a stand
that an award was approved by the State Government on
05.03.2010 and that the same had been made within two years
of the declaration. It is also contended that pursuant to the
award, possession of the land was taken from the first
respondent by the acquiring authority and the land was then
handed over to the appellant. It was also submitted that the
entire compensation had been paid to the first respondent. The
State Government contends that the need for an additional
award arose only because some of the land owners of the land
initially proposed to be acquired were left out in the original
award that was approved on 05.03.2010.
9. Appearing for the appellant Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned
senior counsel has submitted that the award had been passed
in Form No. 15 of the Assam Land Acquisition Manual and was
7
approved by the State on 05.03.2010. Possession of the land
was also handed over by the first respondent to the acquiring
authority on 21.05.2010 and was thereafter handed over to the
appellant on 11.06.2010. Shri Bhushan submitted that the
compensation was also received by the first respondent and, in
fact, the first respondent had also sought enhancement of the
compensation allowed under the said award. It is Shri
Bhushan’s submission that once the land stood vested in the
State, it could not have been acquired again. Therefore, any
issuance of fresh notification under Section 4 and 6 or even
preparing of a fresh award by the State Government in respect
of the first respondent’s land will be non est or infructuous. He
further submits that the letters dated 21.07.2012 and
06.01.2014 relied upon by the High Court could not have had
the effect of re-acquiring the land in question since it already
stood vested in the State Government.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Assam has
supported the stand of the appellant.
11. However, Shri Senthil Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the
first respondent submits that the aforesaid two letters would
conclusively establish that no approval to an award was
8
granted by the State Government under the original acquisition
proceedings. It is his submission that the two aforesaid letters
dated 21.07.2012 and 06.01.2014 which were relied upon by
the Division Bench of the High Court would clearly establish the
same. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of these appeals.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials
placed on record. Having regard to the contentions urged, the
crucial question for consideration is whether an award in
respect of the first respondent’s land was approved by the
State Government on 05.03.2010. Needless to say, if the award
was not approved on 05.03.2010, but rather on 06.01.2014 as
contended by the first respondent, then the 2013 Act will be
applicable and the first respondent will be eligible to receive
compensation in accordance therewith.
13. To determine whether the award had indeed been
approved on 05.03.2010, we first have to examine the letter
dated 30.01.2010 through which the State Government’s
approval of the award was sought by the Deputy Commissioner.
It is uncontested that vide this letter both the award and the
land acquisition estimate were sent to the State Government
9
for its approval. It is pertinent to note that the award was in the
format of Form No. 15 which is the statutorily prescribed form
for a land acquisition award under the Assam Land Acquisition
Manual. This is also true of the land acquisition estimate which
was as per the prescribed format of Form No. 5. As such, the
only further action required of the State Government was to
approve the award which was already in the statutorily
prescribed form. This is precisely what was done vide the letter
dated 05.03.2010 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Revenue Department.
14. This letter dated 05.03.2010 was issued in response to the
letter dated 30.01.2010, whereunder approval of the award and
the land acquisition estimate was sought. While this letter only
expressly mentions the land acquisition estimate and not the
award, a combined reading of this letter with the preceding
letter dated 30.01.2010 and the subsequent conduct of the
parties, including the first respondent, make it evident that the
award stood approved by this letter of 05.03.2010. It is
noteworthy that copies of both the letters of 30.01.2010 and
05.03.2010 were also addressed to the Industries & Commerce
Department of the Government of Assam. Vide the initial letter
10
of 30.01.2010, the said Department was requested to arrange
balance funds for making payment to the land owners as per
the award. In furtherance of this, vide the letter of 05.03.2010,
the said Department was directed to place the balance
estimated fund at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner. We
find strength in the appellant’s submission that if the award
which had been sent for approval alongwith the estimate had
not been approved by the said letter dated 05.03.2010, this
direction for making funds for payment to landowners available
to the Deputy Commissioner would not have been called for.
This view is fortified by the subsequent conduct of the parties,
as particularly evinced by the below mentioned actions.
15. It is undisputed that the award amount was indeed made
available to the Deputy Commissioner and the awarded sum
was duly paid to and received by the first respondent. Not only
did the first respondent receive compensation pursuant to the
award, it in fact sought enhancement of the same vide its
reassessment petition dated 05.05.2010 u/s 18 of the L.A. Act
addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. It is also not contested
that vide possession certificate dated 21.05.2010, the first
respondent handed over possession to the Deputy
11
Commissioner and that on 11.06.2010 possession of the land
was ultimately handed over to the appellant by the Deputy
Commissioner. What clearly emerges from the above is that
after the letter dated 05.03.2010, it was the common belief of
the State Government, the appellant as well as the first
respondent that the award had been approved and that now
actions subsequent thereto viz. payment and receipt of
compensation, handover of possession, seeking reassessment
of the compensation were needed to be undertaken.
16. It is clear from the materials on record that the plastic
project for which the subject Land Acquisition was initiated has
already been developed on the acquired land including
boundary wall, entrance gate, laying of roads, drains and
electrical distribution networks, electrical substation, industrial
sheds and warehouses.
17. In the above scenario, the arguments of the first
respondent are untenable. Once the award has been approved,
compensation has been paid thereunder and possession of the
land has been handed over to the Government, acquisition
proceedings could not have been reopened, including by way of
re-notification of the already acquired land under Section 4 of
12
the L.A. Act by the Government. Contrary to the first
respondent’s contention, the question of lapsing under Section
24 of the L.A. Act could not have arisen in this case once the
award was approved on 05.03.2010.
18. So far as the second set of acquisition proceedings are
concerned, without addressing the factual veracity of the State
Government’s contention that the second award was meant to
be only in respect of landowners not covered by the original
award, we are of the opinion that it would not have been
possible for the State Government to initiate acquisition
proceedings in respect of already acquired land such as that of
the first respondent herein. This position has been affirmed by
this Court in D. Hanumanth SA & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka and Ors.
1
in the following terms:
“17. Even otherwise, if land already stands
acquired by the Government and if the same
stands vested in the Government there is no
question of acquisition of such a land by issuing a
second notification for the Government cannot
acquire its own land. The same is by now settled
by various decision of this Court in a catena of
cases.
18. In State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma,
2
this
Court has held that the Land Acquisition Act does
not contemplate or provide for the acquisition of
any interest belonging to the Government in the
land on acquisition This position was reiterated in
1 (2010) 10 SCC 656.
2 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249.
13
a subsequent decision of this Court in Meher Rusi
Dalal v. Union of India
3
in paras 15 and 16 of the
said judgment, this Court has held that the High
Court clearly erred in setting aside the order of
the Special Land Acquisition Officer declining a
reference since it is settled law that in land
acquisition proceedings the Government cannot
and does not acquire its own interest. While
laying down the aforesaid law, this Court has
referred to its earlier decision in Collector of
Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri
4 ”
The recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
5
has also affirmed that once possession is taken by the State,
the land vests absolutely with the State and the title of the
landowner ceases. We find no reason to deviate from this
settled position of law and thus are unable to agree with the
High Court’s reliance on the letters dated 21.07.2012 and
06.01.2014 to nullify the original award and allow fresh
acquisition proceedings in respect of the first respondent’s land
which had already been acquired and has been under the
possession of the appellant since 11.06.2010.
19. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appeals succeed
and are accordingly allowed. The orders impugned herein are
3 (2004) 7 SCC 362.
4 AIR 1955 SC 298 : (1955) 1 SCR 1311.
5 (2020) 8 SCC 129.
14
set aside. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
…….……………………………J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
…….……………………………J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi;
January 28, 2021.
