[2023] 12 S.C.R. 159 : 2023 INSC 818
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2644 of 2016)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND J.K. MAHESHWARI*, JJ.]
Issues for consideration: Whether the impugned judgment of
the High Court negating the plea of land owner seeking ‘lapse’
of the acquisition proceedings in terms of s. 11-A of the Land
Acquisition Act is liable to be interfered with; whether decision of
Nagpur Improvement Trust refusing to grant alternative plot, as
directed by the High Court, requires interference; and what suitable
relief could be granted to land owner on account of delay caused
in determination of compensation despite time bound directions
by the High Court.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s. 11-A – Nagpur Improvement
Trust Act, 1936 – Acquisition under the State Act-NIT Act with
the aid of LA Act – Applicability of s. 11-A in the acquisition
proceedings under the NIT Act – On facts, notification issued
u/s. 39 of the NIT Act in 1962, possession was taken in the
year 1970 and the road was constructed, in the year 1986
award passed in case of the other land owners and in 2013
an ex-parte award passed – Plea of lapsing of acquisition
proceedings by the land owner:
Held: Provisions of s. 11-A of LA Act which provides for lapsing of
the land acquisition proceedings, would not be applicable where
acquisition was made under NIT Act – In view thereof, no error
committed by the High Court in negating the plea of lapsing of
acquisition proceedings as raised by land owner. [Paras 13 and 15]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Nagpur Improvement Trust Act,
1936 – Rejection of the request of the land owner for grant
of alternate piece of land by the Nagpur Improvement Trust,
as directed by the High Court – Interference with:
Held: By the impugned order passed by the High Court, directions
were issued to NIT to consider the prayer for the grant of alternate
land to the land owner – Said prayer was rejected by the NIT, inter-
* Author
160 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
alia stating that grant of alternate land in lieu of compensation was
not possible in the absence of any provisions in the Act – Said
plea does not have any statutory backing under NIT Act, thus,
refusal made by NIT does not warrant any interference – After the
rejection of the representation to grant alternate land particularly
in absence of any statutory backing, there is no inclination to
entertain the said plea – Nonetheless, the said prayer was not
seriously pressed by the land owner and prayer was confined to
grant of adequate compensation. [Para 16]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Nagpur Improvement Trust Act,
1936 – Delay caused in determination of compensation despite
time bound directions by the High Court – Publication of
preliminary notification in 1962, the possession of the subject
land taken in 1970 and the road was constructed which is in
public use since then – Award passed in 1986, in the case
of other land owners, discriminating the instant land owner
wherein even after directions of the High Court in 2009 to pass
an award, prayer for the grant of alternate plot was rejected by
NIT, and ‘ex-parte’ award was passed in 2013 during pendency
of the instant appeal and as such land owners could not get
compensation of the land since last five decades – Grant of
suitable relief to the land owner:
Held: In view of the said chain of events, the delay cannot be
attributed to the land owner – Value of the land which may be
on the date of preliminary notification cannot be equated on the
date of passing of ‘ex-parte’ award – As per s. 48-A of LA Act,
if the award is not passed within a period of two years from the
date of final notification, compensation for the damages suffered
due to delay is to be determined as prescribed therein – Thus,
to meet the ends of justice, it is appropriate to mould the relief –
‘Ex-parte’ award would not be given effect to – Land Acquisition
Officer to determine the compensation afresh taking the market
value of the subject land as on the date of passing of ‘ex-parte’
award – Land owner also entitled to all other statutory benefits
as per the provisions of the LA Act to be calculated from the date
of preliminary notification, as also be entitled to compensation
for damages suffered in view of delay. [Paras 21, 27, 34 and 35]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Nagpur Improvement Trust
Act, 1936 – s. 67 – Award of tribunal how to be determined
– Acquisition of land under NIT Act – Determination of
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 161
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
compensation – Passing of an award – Applicability of the
said provisions of the LA Act:
Held: s. 67 makes it clear that for determining the compensation
and to pass an award, the provisions of the LA Act would be
applicable – Thus, LA Act has its application to such extent for land
acquired by the NIT subject to the modifications made under the
NIT Act – Applicability of s. 11 of LA Act which deals with enquiry
and award, and s. 16 of LA Act which deals with power of Collector
to take possession, even in acquisition under the NIT Act is ‘sine
qua non’ – While making an inquiry u/s. 11, the applicability of s.
9 which deals with issuance of notice to persons interested, is an
integral procedure in the proceedings – Thus, for determination
of compensation to pass an award in case of acquisition of land
under NIT Act, the applicability of the said provisions of the LA
Act has been duly recognised in s. 67 of the NIT Act. [Para 17]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Nagpur Improvement Trust Act,
1936 – Compulsory acquisition of land – Inordinate delay
in granting compensation to the land owner from the date
of taking over of possession – Duty of the State and the
authorities:
Held: Eminent domain of the State cannot be doubted – Right
of the land owner enshrined u/Art. 300-A and Art. 31-A has been
recognized as a human/civil right , thus if any individual is to be
divested or deprived of the said right by the State, it ought not
be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for
the land so acquired for public purpose – While striking a balance
between eminent domain of the State and human/civil rights of an
individual, an obligation is on the State and its authorities to pass
an award within a reasonable time – On compulsory acquisition
of land, if the award is not passed within a reasonable time duly
compensating such an individual, it would cause grave hardship
and it would adversely affect the livelihood of the land loser – Delay
in determining compensation uproots the land losers, however, to
meet the ends of justice and to rationalize the equity, switching
the date of market value in determining compensation is found
necessary. [Para 32]
Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and Others,
(2002) 7 SCC 657 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 636; Bankatlal
v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2014)
15 SCC 116 : [2014] 7 SCR 879 – relied on.
162 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others through Power-ofAttorney Holder v. Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : [2012]
13 SCR 29; Bhimandas Ambwani (Dead) through LRs
v. Delhi Power Company Limited, (2013) 14 SCC 195
: [2013] 1 SCR 996; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd.
and Another v. State of U.P. and Another, (2022) SCC
Online SC 1408; K. Krishna Reddy and Others Vs.
Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, LMD
Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, (1988) 4 SCC 163:[1988]
2 Suppl. SCR 853 – referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2644 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2009 of the High Court
of Bombay at Nagpur in WP No. 2022 of 1992.
Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Gagan Sanghi, Ms. Farah Hashmi,
Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Dr. Prashant Pratap, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., Satyajit A. Desai, Abhinav K.
Mutyalwar, Gajanan N. Tirthkar, Vijay Raj Singh Chauhan, Ms.
Anagha S. Desai, Sachin Patil, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya
Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Geo Joseph,
Risvi Muhammed, Durgesh Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.09.2009 passed
in Writ Petition No. 2022 of 1992 by the High Court of Judicature of
Bombay at Nagpur Bench. The said Writ Petition was filed by the
father of the appellant/land owner (now deceased) seeking writ in
the nature of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in
taking over possession of the subject land owned by him pursuant to
acquisition made by respondent no. 2 as illegal, arbitrary and without
any authority of law. The land owner also sought compensation @
Rs. 400-500/- per sq. ft. with commensurate damages caused on
account of mental agony suffered in last several years, or in alternate,
allotment of plot of equal dimension in the same vicinity. During the
pendency of the petition, the original writ petitioner died and his legal
heir (appellant herein) was substituted.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 163
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
2. The High Court observed that possession of land was taken in 1970
and the award in case of other land owners was passed in year 1986,
separating the case of appellant. Therefore, partly allowing the writ
petition, High Court directed respondent nos. 2 and 3 to complete
the exercise for grant of alternate plot on or before 31.01.2010 or
otherwise determine compensation on or before 30.04.2010 and
pay damages as per Section 48-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as ‘LA Act’) in accordance with law.
3. For ready reference and convenience, hereinafter we shall refer
the deceased father of the appellant as ‘land owner’; his legal
heir as ‘appellant’; Respondent No. 1/State of Maharashtra as
‘State’; Nagpur Improvement Trust/Respondent No. 2 as ‘NIT’ and
Respondent No. 3/Special Land Acquisition Officer as ‘SLAO’.
4. The facts succinctly stated are that, in an auction dated 26.02.1943
held by the Commissioner Court of Wards, the landowner purchased
two plots bearing No. 8 admeasuring 9800 sq. ft. of Khasra No. 35/8
and No. 18 admeasuring 7248 sq. ft. of Khasra No. 35/9 at Mouza
Khamla, District Nagpur, Maharashtra on payment of Rs. 880/-. The
said plots previously belonged to ‘Ex-Malguzar Pande’. The sale
deeds of both the plots were executed by the representative of the
Court of Wards in favour of the landowner on 02.03.1944. Vide order
dated 09.05.1962 passed by S.D.O., Nagpur, the revenue records
were corrected and those plots were mutated in the name of the
landowner. NIT required the said land for ‘Ajni Street Scheme’
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Scheme’) for which the notification under
Section 39 of Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘NIT Act’) akin to Section 4 of the LA Act was published
on 12.07.1962 specifying Khasra Nos. 35/1 and 35/2 only. The
final declaration under Section 45 of the NIT Act akin to Section 6
of the LA Act was published on 16.01.1969. After final declaration,
NIT vide letter dated 10.10.1969 requested the State for transfer of
Khasra Nos. 35/1 and 35/2 to it for the Scheme, as it presumed the
land to be Government Nazul land. Sometime in the year 1970, NIT
constructed the road on 5390 sq. ft. of land of Khasra No. 35/8 which
included plot No. 8 belonging to the land owner. Thus, admittedly,
after taking of possession of subject land, road was constructed in
1970 on it and is in public use since then.
164 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
5. In reply to letter dated 10.10.1969 written by NIT, the Collector, District
Nagpur on 31.05.1972 informed that transfer of land of Khasra Nos.
35/1 & 35/2 is not possible because it is not Government land; in
fact, the said land belonged to and was occupied by Ex-Malguzar
Pande. Therefore, NIT was instructed to submit valuation report of
the remaining land. The land owners also received ‘no objection’ to
sell other plot No. 18 of Khasra No. 35/9 from NIT on 21.02.1976
and sold it to one Anil Hinge on 08.03.1976. For the sake of clarity,
it is only ‘plot No. 8’, i.e., Khasra no. 35/8 which is the subject land
in the present appeal and not plot No. 18 of Khasra No. 35/9.
6. The first notice dated 18.07.1974 issued by SLAO under Section
9(3) of LA Act was served to landowner and second notice dated
07.09.1974 was also served, however, none of the said notices
specified that Khasra No. 35/8 is also under acquisition. Nevertheless,
the land owner without prejudice to his rights, filed his statement of
claim in Revision Case No. 82-86/71-72. The NIT in reference to its
previous letter dated 10.10.1969, again wrote to SLAO on 02.02.1977,
requesting him to determine the interests of land owners on Khasra
nos. 35/1 and 35/2. Thereafter, third notice dated 18.10.1977 under
Section 9(3) of the LA Act was served to the landowner, however,
again there was no mention of Khasra no. 35/8. In the said scenario,
the landowner in reply to the notice, requested SLAO to discharge
his land from the acquisition proceedings primarily on the ground that
Khasra No. 35/8 was not reflected in all three notices. The said prayer
was opposed by NIT by response dated 19.04.1979, contending that
Khasra No. 35/8 was part of Khasra Nos. 35/1 and 35/2. However,
the SLAO vide order date 01.08.1981 separated the papers of the
land owner. It is also on record that NIT in furtherance to its letter
dated 02.02.1977, informed SLAO on 03.11.1981 that proposal for
acquisition of Khasra Nos. 35/1 and 35/2 had been submitted and
the interest of various persons shall be determined including the
land owner, however, the proposal with respect to Khasra No. 35/8
was still not submitted.
7. The land owner awaiting a proposal from NIT, filed a claim on
25.11.1981 requesting grant of alternate plot in the same vicinity on
the ground that the possession of his land was taken in 1970 and as
on date, road is already constructed on the same. In response, NIT
vide letter dated 02.06.1982 asked the land owner to prove his title
without considering its own reply dated 19.04.1979. Meanwhile, on
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 165
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
22.09.1986, SLAO passed an award for adjoining pieces of land in
Khasra Nos. 35/3 and 35/4 and since the papers of land owner were
separated, no award was passed with respect to Khasra No. 35/8.
Corrected city survey record dated 26.09.1986, recording name of
land owner in Khasra No. 35/8 was supplied to him. In view of the
corrected records, landowner again submitted a representation to NIT
on 17.01.1987 and requested for alternate plot. In reply letter dated
06.03.1987, NIT informed landowner that plot No. 8 in Khasra No.
35 belonging to land owner was under acquisition, and alternate plot
cannot be allotted. The land owner was directed to approach SLAO
for compensation for the said plot. Having no clear response, the
land owner sent a legal notice dated 02.09.1987 to NIT and sought
details of acquisition proceedings under which his land was acquired,
however, it was of no avail. In the meantime, the land owner made
a representation to the Guardian Minister seeking allotment of an
alternate plot, which was forwarded to NIT. Pursuant thereto, NIT vide
reply dated 19.12.1988 to Guardian Minister admitted that the land
of the land owner is under acquisition but grant of alternative plot is
not possible. Be that as it may, correspondences were exchanged
and finally NIT vide letter dated 15.01.1990 apprised the land owner
regarding pending acquisition proceedings of his land. Land owner
again submitted representation dated 25.07.1990 and 09.04.1991
for grant of alternate plot as compensation, but again to no avail.
8. Aggrieved by the inaction of authorities and delayed response to his
representations, on the advice of the advocate, land owner filed a
complaint before Consumer Forum, Nagpur, which was withdrawn
for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the land owner on 29.04.1992
filed ‘Writ Petition No. 2022/1992’ before High Court of Bombay,
Nagpur Bench praying the above said reliefs. The State did not file
any reply, however, SLAO filed a reply and did not dispute the land
acquisition notification for the Scheme. The issuance of three notices
under Section 9(3) of LA Act; the order dated 01.08.1981 passed
by SLAO separating the papers of land owner as evident from the
records; the passing of the award dated 22.09.1986 in the case of
landowners of other Khasra Nos. 35/3 and 35/4 were neither denied
nor disputed. More so, the SLAO in its reply did not raise any plea
of delay and laches in filing the writ petition by landowner.
9. So far as stand of NIT before the High Court is concerned, the
issuance of notifications for land acquisition was not controverted.
166 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
It was stated that Khasra No. 35 mentioned in the final Notification
consisted of total area of 8.56 acres of Khasra Nos. 35/1 and 35/2
out of which, 6.56 acres was Government land and the remaining
land was of Ex-Malguzar Pande. It was stated that the west side of
High Court Road was laid down in the compelling public need for the
city of Nagpur. All the communications between NIT, State, SLAO and
land owner were not disputed. It was stated that the request for a
grant of the alternate plot was rightly declined and the order passed
by SLAO on 01.08.1981 was not an order of discharge. Therefore,
the land owner on the anvil of said order cannot contest that his land
was not acquired. The passing of the award on 02.09.1986 for the
land of other land holders was not denied. With respect to prayer
for grant of compensation @ Rs. 400 to Rs. 500 per. sq. ft., it was
said that the actual value of land may hardly be Rs. 125 to Rs. 150
per sq. ft. at relevant time, hence, the compensation as sought is
on the higher side. It was lastly submitted that the writ petition has
been filed after inordinate delay, therefore, it ought to be dismissed
on the ground of laches.
10. The High Court by the impugned order partly allowed the writ
petition as referred above. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before
this Court assailing the said judgment. After notice in this appeal,
NIT filed counter affidavit, whereas, the prayer of the State to file
counter affidavit was declined vide order dated 07.12.2012 with the
liberty to file additional documents. During the pendency, the counsel
for appellant on 03.07.2013 without prejudice gave up his claim of
alternative plot provided NIT is prepared to pay compensation as
per current market rate. On request, time was granted to counsel for
NIT to seek instructions. In reply, additional affidavit was filed by NIT
stating that compensation as per market rate is not possible, since
it is a public body and informed the award granting compensation
@ Rs. 54,717/- has been passed.
11. The appellant filed additional affidavit along with a valuation report
dated 16.07.2013 showing the current market value of land as in
the year 2013 as Rs. 3,93,45,696/-. In view of the inordinate delay
in passing of award from the date of notification and taking over of
possession, prayer is made to mould the relief in exercise of the
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 167
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
12. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of
the case, in our view, the following questions arise for consideration:
i) Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court negating the
plea of appellant seeking ‘lapse’ of the acquisition proceedings
in terms of Section 11-A of LA Act is liable to be interfered with?
ii) Whether decision of NIT refusing to grant alternative plot, as
directed by the High Court, requires interference in this appeal?
iii) Whether in the peculiar facts of the case, delay caused in
determination of compensation despite time bound directions by
the High Court, what suitable relief can be granted to appellant?
IN REFERENCE TO QUESTION NO. 1
13. It is not in dispute that the notification was issued under Section 39
of the NIT Act on 12.07.1962. Although the said notification is not on
record, but looking at the material brought, it is clear that the land
of Khasra No. 35/1 and 35/2 only, without mentioning Khasra No.
35/8 in the said notification was proposed for acquisition. The final
notification was issued with same details. The possession of Khasra
No. 35/8 was taken in the year 1970 and the road was constructed on
5390 sq. ft. utilising the entire land of 9800 sq. ft of the said Khasra.
It is relevant to note that vide Act of 68 of 1984, amendment in the
LA Act was introduced adding Section 11-A, whereby passing an
award determining the compensation within period of two years was
made necessary. In case the award has not been passed within the
specified period, it shall result in lapsing of acquisition proceedings.
In the present case, the acquisition was under the State Act, i.e.,
NIT Act with the aid of LA Act, however, it’s applicability in such
acquisition requires consideration.
14. The said issue of applicability of Section 11-A of the LA Act in an
acquisition proceeding carried under NIT Act has been decided by
this Court in the case of “Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Vasantrao
and Others, (2002) 7 SCC 657”, wherein it was clarified that the
subsequent amendment made by Act No. 68 of 1984 will have no
effect on the acquisition made under the State Act, which means the
lapsing provision under Section 11-A introduced by Act of 68 of 1984,
does not apply to acquisition of land by Nagpur Improvement Trust
under NIT Act. The same principle has been reiterated in “Bankatlal
168 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2014) 15 SCC
116”, wherein it was held that the NIT Act is a complete code in itself,
except to apply the provisions of the LA Act that stood legislatively
incorporated in the said Act, and other provisions would not apply. It
was held that the subsequent amendment made by Act 68 of 1984
inserting Section 11-A would have no effect on the acquisition made
under NIT Act.
15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the
provisions of Section 11-A of LA Act which provides for lapsing of
the land acquisition proceedings, would not be applicable where
acquisition was made under NIT Act. In view of the foregoing
discussion and settled law, we are of the considered opinion that
the High Court has not committed any error in negating the plea of
lapsing of acquisition proceedings as raised by the appellant.
IN REFERNECE TO QUESTION NO. 2
16. By the impugned order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the High Court,
directions were issued to NIT to consider the prayer for the grant of
alternate land to the appellant. The said prayer was rejected by the
Chairman, NIT on 31.12.2009, inter-alia stating that grant of alternate
land in lieu of compensation is not possible in the absence of any
provisions in the Act. The said rejection has not been separately
challenged by the appellant and has attained finality. In our view also,
the said plea does not have any statutory backing under NIT Act,
therefore, refusal made by NIT does not warrant any interference.
Be that as it may, on 03.07.2013, counsel for the appellant without
prejudice to his right made a statement that to amicably resolve the
controversy, the appellant was willing to give up the claim of grant
of alternate plot provided NIT is prepared to pay the current market
price as on 03.07.2013. Thereafter, time was sought by counsel for
NIT to seek instructions. After instructions, NIT filed its response on
02.08.2013 wherein the grant of an alternative plot was denied. As
discussed, after the rejection of the representation to grant alternate
land particularly in absence of any statutory backing, we are not
inclined to entertain the said plea. Nonetheless, the said prayer
was not seriously pressed by the appellant and prayer was confined
to grant of adequate compensation. Therefore, question no. 2 is
answered accordingly.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 169
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
IN REFERNECE TO QUESTION NO. 3
17. In the case at hand, compulsory acquisition of the subject land was
initiated issuing preliminary notification in 1962 and final notification
in January 1969 under the provisions of NIT Act with the aid of LA
Act. As per Section 59 of NIT Act, for any scheme, the NIT may
acquire the land with the previous sanction of the State Government
under the LA Act as modified by NIT Act. As per Section 61(b) of
NIT Act, for the purpose of acquiring the land, the provisions of LA
Act shall apply subject to further modifications as indicated in the
Schedule. As per Section 67 of the NIT Act, the provisions of the
LA Act are made applicable for determination of award for the land
so acquired. The Schedule as referred to in Section 61 has made
the modification in the LA Act. Some of the modifications made in
clause 6 adding Section 17-A and clause 14 adding Section 48-A are
relevant for the purpose of this case, in addition to other provisions
as referred hereinabove. Therefore, for ready reference, they are
reproduced as thus –
“17-A. Transfer of land to Trust –
In every case referred to in section 16 or section 17, the Collector
shall, upon payment of the cost of acquisition, make over change of
the land to the Trust and the land shall thereupon vest in the Trust,
subject to the liability of the Trust to pay any further costs which may
be incurred on account of its acquisition.”
“48-A. Compensation to be awarded when land not acquired
within two years –
(1) If within a period of two years from the date of the publication
of the declaration under section 6 in respect of any land, the
Collector has not made an award under section 11 with respect
to such land, the owner of the land shall, unless he has been to
a material extent responsible for the delay, be entitled to receive
compensation for the damage suffered by him in consequence
of the delay.
(2) The provisions of Part III of this Act, shall apply so far as may
be, to the determination of the compensation payable under
this section.”
170 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
Section 67 of the NIT Act makes it clear that for the purpose of determining
the compensation and to pass an award, the provisions of the LA Act would
be applicable. Thus, LA Act has its application to such extent for land
acquired by the NIT subject to the modifications made under the NIT Act.
In view of the provisions of the NIT Act, the preliminary notification of the
land acquisition shall be under Section 39, and the final Notification shall
be under Section 45 for compulsory acquisition as specified in Section 59
of the NIT Act. It is to be noted here that, Section 16 of the LA Act deals
with the power of Collector to take possession of the land after he has
made an award under Section 11 and the said land shall thereupon vest
absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Section 17
of LA Act deals with the special powers in case of urgency, but the said
provision is not relevant in the facts of the present case. Further, Section
17-A of the LA Act as modified in the Schedule referred to in Section
61 of NIT Act adopts the procedure specified in Section 16 or 17 of the
LA Act. Section 17-A prescribes that the Collector upon payment of the
cost of acquisition shall make over change of the land to the Trust and
the land shall thereupon vest in the Trust subject to discharge of liability
and payment of any further cost which may be incurred on account of
acquisition. Therefore, the applicability of Section 11 of LA Act which deals
with enquiry and award, and Section 16 of LA Act which deals with power
of Collector to take possession, even in acquisition under the NIT Act is
‘sine qua non’. While making an inquiry under Section 11, the applicability
of Section 9 which deals with issuance of notice to persons interested,
is an integral procedure in the proceedings. Hence, for the purpose of
determination of compensation to pass an award in case of acquisition
of land under NIT Act, applicability of the said provisions of the LA Act
has been duly recognised in Section 67 of the NIT Act.
18. As per Section 16 of the LA Act, the Collector on making an award
may take possession of the land to vest it in the Government. Similarly,
under Section 17-A added to Schedule of NIT Act, passing of an
award is a necessary pre-condition to vest the land with NIT. Further,
Section 48-A specifies that if award is not passed by the Collector
within a period of two years from the date of final notification, the
land owner, if not responsible for delay to a material extent, shall
be entitled to receive compensation for damages suffered by him in
consequence of delay. The said damage would be determined as
per the provisions of Part-III of LA Act.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 171
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
19. In view of the said basic provisions if we see the facts of this case,
then it is not in dispute that the subject land was occupied by ExMalguzar Pande. The land owner purchased the land in auction
and sale deed was executed in his favour by the Court of Wards.
As per the order dated 09.04.1962 passed by the SDO, Nagpur,
the revenue records were corrected recording his name before
issuance of preliminary notification. In the said notification as well
as in the final notification dated 16.01.1969, Khasra No. 35/8 was
not mentioned. The NIT had taken possession and constructed the
road on the west side entrance of the High Court which is in public
use. After final notification, statutory notice under Section 9 of LA
Act was issued to all the persons interested. As per the mandate
of law, such notice shall contain particulars of the land needed for
acquisition with an intent to ask the affected parties to submit their
respective claims and interests.
20. In the instant case, three notices were issued to the land owners
including deceased land owner Loonkaran Gandhi on 18.07.1974,
07.09.1974 and 18.10.1977. However, as stated above, the said
notices did not mention Khasra No. 35/8. Since Khasra No. 35/8 was
not mentioned, land owner filed the application seeking discharge
from acquisition proceedings. Pursuant thereto, SLAO separated
the claim of land owner from other claimants emanating out of
same notification. It is pertinent to note that NIT vide letter dated
10.10.1969 informed the Collector, Nagpur that Khasra Nos. 35/1
and 35/2 are Government Nazul land and asked for transfer of such
land in favour of NIT for the Scheme. In reply, the Collector, Nagpur
on 31.05.1972 informed that such land cannot be transferred since
it is not a government land and belongs to Ex-Malguzar Pande.
Therefore, the Collector requested NIT to submit a valuation
report of the remaining land. The NIT vide letter dated 02.02.1977
acknowledged and requested the SLAO to determine the interest of
the persons from Khasra Nos. 35/8 to 35/12. Later, NIT submitted
proposals for Khasra No. 35/1 and 35/2, but it is not on record why
the proceedings to determine compensation of Khasra No. 35/8 of
the land owner were not commenced.
21. The correspondence also reflects that in absence of initiation of
proceedings for determination of compensation, land owner submitted
a representation to allot alternate land equal to the land of Khasra
No. 35/8 in the same locality which was denied on 06.03.1987. As
172 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
per material placed, in cases of other landowners, the award was
passed on 22.09.1986 by SLAO with respect to Khasra Nos. 35/3
and 35/4. Thus, it is apparent that possession was taken from land
owner without payment of compensation and the prayer for alternate
piece of land was rejected. It is also apparent that even up to filing
the writ petition, proceedings to award compensation of the land of
Khasra No. 35/8 were not commenced. On filing the Writ Petition,
even during its’ pendency, action to determine compensation was not
started. Therefore, the High Court by the impugned order directed NIT
to consider the prayer for the grant of an alternate plot, otherwise,
SLAO to pass award on or before 30.04.2010. As directed by the
High Court, prayer for the grant of alternate plot was rejected by
NIT, but the award was not passed within the time given in the order
by the High Court.
22. In the given facts, the appellant filed this Special Leave Petition,
wherein, notice was issued on 22.03.2010. The NIT filed its counteraffidavit on 18.06.2012 contesting the case. On 03.07.2013, this
Court passed an order as under –
“Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner made a statement that without prejudice to his rights and
with a view to amicably resolve the controversy, his client is willing
to give up his claim provided the competent authority of the Nagpur
Improvement Trust is prepared to pay the current market price.
Shri Satyajit A. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the Nagpur
Improvement Trust requests for an adjournment to seek instructions
from the concerned authorities.
Put up after two weeks.”
23. Later, on 22.07.2013, the NIT further sought time to seek instructions
in view of the statement made by the counsel for the appellant.
Thereafter on 02.08.2013, NIT filed additional affidavit in which
reference to ‘ex-parte’ award passed on 30.04.2013 was made for
the first time and it was stated that a sum of Rs. 54,717/- has been
awarded to the appellant. On 21.10.2013, during arguments, this
Court found that there was an inordinate delay in passing the award
dated 22.09.1986 in the case of other land owners. Therefore, an
explanation was sought for delay of 17 years, 8 months and 13
days. The said order dated 21.10.2013 is relevant and therefore
reproduced as thus –
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 173
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
“After the arguments were heard for some time, Shri Uday Dube,
learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra made a request for
short adjournment to enable his client to file an additional affidavit
to explain 17 years 8 months and 13 days delay between issue of
notification under Section 45 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust, 1936
and passing of the award. Shri Dube further stated that he shall
instruct the concerned officer to explain as to why appropriate award
was not passed within the time specified in order dated 29.09.2009
passed by the High Court.
The request of Shri Dube is accepted and the case is adjourned to
1.11.2013..”
24. In view of the above order, time to file additional affidavits and to
explain the delay was allowed to SLAO and NIT, which were filed by
them on 11.11.2013 and 04.12.2013 respectively. In the said additional
affidavits, the SLAO and NIT, both attributed delay to each other and
also against the appellant. Therefore, the Court after hearing passed
the order on 03.01.2014, which is reproduced as under –
“The case was taken up on 21st October, 2013, the Court had passed
the following order:
“After the arguments were heard for some time, Shri Uday
Dube, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra made a
request for short adjournment to enable his client to file an
additional affidavit to explain 17 years, 8 months and 13 days
delay between issue of notification under Section 45 of the
Nagpur Improvement Trust, 1936 and passing of the award.
Shri Dube further stated that he shall instruct the concerned
officer to explain as to why appropriate award was not passed
within the time specified in order dated 29.09.2009 passed by
the High Court.
The request of Shri Dube is accepted and the case is adjourned
to 1.11.2013.”
Pursuant to the said order, explanation has been filed by the State
which shows that there was disputes between the respondents due to
which there was a delay of 17 years, 8 months and 13 days between
issue of notification under Section 45 of the Nagpur Improvement
Trust, 1936 and passing of the award.
174 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
In the circumstances, respondents are directed to explain as to why
this Court will not grant suitable relief to the petitioners by directing
the respondents as to allot equivalent alternative plots in the adjoining
area or to pay the compensation on the basis of market value as on
the date of award with solatium and interest, as per law.
Affidavit may be filed within three weeks. Reply, if any, be filed within
two weeks thereof.
Post the matter after six weeks.”
25. In response to the order, neither the State Government nor SLAO
submitted any explanation. It is only NIT who filed an additional
affidavit on 25.01.2014, inter-alia, stating that allotment of alternate
plots in the adjoining area is not possible and denied the payment of
compensation as per market value as existing on 03.07.2013. It was
stated that it is only the appellant who can be blamed for inordinate
delay. In the said affidavit, the causes of delay were crystallized in
three slots, viz. between the issuance of notifications till filing of writ
petition; delay during the pendency of writ petition; and delay between
the date of order in the writ petition and passing the award. On filing
the said explanation and upon hearing the parties on 22.07.2014,
this Court passed the following order –
“Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade learned senior counsel and Mr. Gagan
Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Marlapalle learned
senior counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Pallav Shishodia,
learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 2 in part.
The learned counsel for the parties shall file respective charts precisely
putting forth why there was enormous delay in passing the award.
We have asked learned counsel for the parties to undertake this
exercise as we are of considered opinion that the compensation that
is allowable under Section 48-A of the Nagpur Improvement Trust
Act, 1936 may be applicable if a case is made out.
List on 5th August, 2014.”
26. In furtherance to the said order, it is only the appellant who filed
the chart and explained as to how and in what manner, the delay is
caused. It was further stated that only respondents are responsible
for not passing the award despite time bound directions given by
the High Court. Conversely, the SLAO passed an ex-parte award
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 175
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
that too without any intimation or notice as mandated by Section
12(2) of LA Act.
27. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the averments made in
the additional affidavits filed in furtherance of orders dated 03.07.2013,
21.10.2013 and 22.07.2014, it is clear that Respondents have taken
more than six and half years to issue final notification which was
published on 16.01.1969. The possession had been taken immediately
and the three notices under Section 9 of LA Act were issued on
18.7.1974, 07.09.1974 and 18.10.1977 respectively. The award was
passed in the case of other land owners on 22.09.1986, leaving
the case of land owner/appellant herein. Thus, it is apparent that
the period of seven years has been taken to issue the notice under
Section 9 to the appellant after the date of taking the possession and
the award was passed in the case of other land owners after more
than 17 years, separating the claim of the appellant. In view of the
said chain of events, the delay cannot be attributed to the appellant.
More so, the writ petition filed by land owner before High Court on
29.04.1992 was decided on 29.09.2009, i.e., after about 17 years.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the delay, if any, occurred,
cannot be attributed to the appellant, but it may reflect on conduct of
respondents for not passing the award even during such pendency.
It is not out of place to observe that the High Court has not outrightly
disregarded the claim of the appellant for grant of alternate plot in
adjoining area and directed the NIT to take a decision. In case, the
allotment of plot was not possible, respondents were directed to pass
an award within the time frame. The NIT denied the alternate plot,
but even thereafter, the award was not passed within the time limit
fixed by the High Court. The award on record was passed by SLAO
only when this Court had taken cognizance in the matter. Therefore,
even after the order of the High Court, there is a delay of more than
three years in passing of the award. Thus, in our considered opinion,
the delay cannot be said to be attributable to the appellant.
28. As per discussion made above and in the facts of this case, what
amount of compensation may be directed to the appellant herein
needs to be looked into. In this regard, in the case of compulsory
acquisition of land, the eminent domain of the State cannot be
doubted. Simultaneously, right of the land owner enshrined under
Article 300-A and Article 31-A of the Constitution of India which
has been recognized as a human/civil right cannot be overlooked.
176 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
Therefore, if any individual is to be divested or deprived of the said
right by the State, it ought not be done without giving compensation
in accordance with law for the land so acquired for public purpose.
29. In the above context, we can profitably refer the judgment of this Court
in the case of “Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others through Powerof-Attorney Holder Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 353”. In the said case,
this Court had the occasion to consider the principles of eminent
domain, absolute power and deprivation of the rights to property
of an individual. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are
reproduced as thus –
“11. …..There is a distinction, a true and concrete distinction, between
the principle of “eminent domain” and “police power” of the State.
Under certain circumstances, the police power of the State may be
used temporarily, to take possession of property but the present case
clearly shows that neither of the said powers have been exercised.
A question then arises with respect to the authority or power under
which the State entered upon the land. It is evident that the act of
the State amounts to encroachment, in exercise of “absolute power”
which in common parlance is also called abuse of power or use of
muscle power. To further clarify this position, it must be noted that
the authorities have treated the landowner as a “subject” of medieval
India, but not as a “citizen” under our Constitution.
* * * *
17. Depriving the appellants of their immovable properties was a clear
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In a welfare State, statutory
authorities are bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but
there is also a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such persons.
The non-fulfilment of their obligations would tantamount to forcing
the said uprooted persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in
anti-national activities as such sentiments would be born in them on
account of such ill-treatment. Therefore, it is not permissible for any
welfare State to uproot a person and deprive him of his fundamental/
constitutional/human rights, under the garb of industrial development.
18. The appellants have been deprived of their legitimate dues for
about half a century. In such a fact situation, we fail to understand
for which class of citizens the Constitution provides guarantees and
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 177
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
rights in this regard and what is the exact percentage of the citizens
of this country, to whom constitutional/statutory benefits are accorded,
in accordance with the law.
19.…..Even under valid acquisition proceedings, there is a legal
obligation on the part of the authorities to complete such acquisition
proceedings at the earliest, and to make payment of requisite
compensation……”
30. The said judgment has been referred in the case of “Bhimandas
Ambwani (Dead) through LRs Vs. Delhi Power Company
Limited, (2013) 14 SCC 195”, wherein this Court had considered
the aspect of inordinate delay of about five decades in not granting
the compensation to the land loser from the date of taking over of
possession and directed the respondent to make the award treating
the date of Section 4 notification as on the date of order passed by
this Court. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph is reproduced
as thus –
“14. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment
in Tukaram case [(2013) 1 SCC 353] and thus, entitled for restoration
of possession of the land in dispute. However, considering the fact
that the possession of the land was taken over about half a century
ago and stood completely developed as Ms Ahlawat, learned counsel
has submitted that a full-fledged residential colony of the employees
of DESU has been constructed thereon, therefore, it would be
difficult for Respondent 1 to restore the possession. In such a fact
situation, the only option left out to the respondents is to make the
award treating Section 4 notification as, on this date i.e. 12-2-2013
and we direct the Land Acquisition Collector to make the award
after hearing the parties within a period of four months from today.
For that purpose, the parties are directed to appear before the Land
Acquisition Collector c/o the Deputy Commissioner, South M.B. Road,
Saket, New Delhi on 26-2-2013. The appellants is at liberty to file a
reference under Section 18 of the Act and to pursue the remedies
available to him under the Act. Needless to say that the appellants
shall be entitled to all statutory benefits.
31. Recently, the similar approach was adopted in the case of “Delhi
Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of U.P. and
Another, (2022) SCC Online SC 1408”, wherein 3-Judge Bench
of this Court in a reference while dealing with the divergent views of
178 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
two Judges relating to taking over of possession without following the
mandate of Section 17 of the LA Act, vis-a-vis violation of constitutional
guarantee to a citizen under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India,
the Court answered the said reference as thus –
25. On weighing all aspects of the matter, we deem it appropriate that
it will serve the ends of justice to direct the respondents to determine
the market value insofar as the appellant’s land is concerned by
reckoning the relevant date as 09.06.2008 (i.e. the date on which
the award was ultimately passed), by applying the yardstick under
Act, 1894. It is made clear that only the market value be determined
as on that date but for awarding the statutory benefits, it shall be
calculated from the date of the original notification since admittedly
the appellant has been dispossessed on 04.02.2003 pursuant to
the notification dated 17.04.2002. Further, from the date on which
the fresh award is passed pursuant to this judgment, the appellant
would get the cause of action for seeking reference if dissatisfied
with the quantum of compensation awarded. It is made clear that the
determination of compensation, in this case, shall not give rise to any
right in favour of any other land loser whose land was acquired under
the same notification, to seek for re-determination of compensation
where the same has already attained finality.
* * * *
27. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The provision contained in Section 11A of Act, 1894 shall be
applicable to cases in which the acquiring authority has not
complied with the requirement of sub-section (3A) to Section
17 of Act, 1894 by tendering and paying eighty per centum of
the estimated compensation before taking possession since
possession in such cases cannot be considered to be taken in
accordance with law and the vesting is not absolute.
(ii) If the requirement is complied and possession is taken after
tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there is need
to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a
reasonable time, the rigour of Section 11A of Act, 1894 will not
apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to
lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser
in such case is to enforce passing of the award and recover
the compensation.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 179
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
(iii) In the instant case though Section 11A of Act, 1894 has become
applicable, in the changed circumstance we deem it proper to
mould the relief instead of holding the acquisition to have lapsed.
Hence for the reasons stated above, we direct as follows:
(a) The respondents shall construe 09.06.2008 as the relevant
date and determine the market value prevailing as on that
date applying the yardstick under Act, 1894 in respect of the
acquired land.
(b) To calculate the statutory benefits on such amount including
interest, the same shall be determined by taking into consideration
the date of the Section 4 notification dated 17.04.2002 since
the appellant was dispossessed on 04.02.2003 pursuant to
the same.
(c) The date on which the fresh award is passed pursuant to this
judgment and communicated shall be the date of cause of action
for seeking enhancement of compensation if the appellant is
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation offered.
(d) The compensation determined in this case shall not give
the cause of action to any other land loser whose land is
acquired under the same notification to seek re-determination
of compensation.
(e) The appellant shall be entitled to the cost incurred in these
proceedings.”
32. In view of the judgments referred above, this Court while striking a
balance between eminent domain of the State and human/civil rights
of an individual, has put an obligation on the State and its authorities
to pass an award within a reasonable time. It is observed that, on
compulsory acquisition of land, if the award is not passed within
a reasonable time duly compensating such an individual, it would
cause grave hardship and it would adversely affect the livelihood of
the land loser. In the said judgments, because of inordinate delay in
passing the awards, the Court had changed the date of preliminary
notification ordinarily applicable in determining the market value
of land for assessing amount of compensation, to the date of the
judgment of the Court, and/or the date of award passed belatedly. This
Court has recognized the right of the citizen after taking possession
180 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
of the land without payment of compensation. As observed, the delay
in determining compensation uproots the land losers, however, to
meet the ends of justice and to rationalize the equity, switching the
date of market value in determining compensation by the orders of
the Court is found necessary.
33. In the case of “K. Krishna Reddy and Others Vs. Special Deputy
Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, Andhra
Pradesh, (1988) 4 SCC 163”, this Court has conceptualized the effect
of non-determination and payment of compensation immediately to
a land loser. The Court observed that if there is inordinate delay in
determination as well as payment of compensation, it diminishes the
purchase power as well as value of Rupee due to rising inflation.
Therefore, the utility to compensate such land loser with equal value
cannot be ruled out. In the said case, the Court has observed as
thus –
“12. …..After all money is what money buys. What the claimants
could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988.
Perhaps, not even one half of it. It is a common experience that the
purchasing power of rupee is dwindling. With rising inflation, the
delayed payment may lose all charms and utility of the compensation.
In some cases, the delay may be detrimental to the interests of
claimants. The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation.
They totally depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves
nowhere. They are left high and dry……..”
34. If we take clue from the above referred judgments and the observations
made, the principles as enunciated squarely applies in the case on
hand. For the sake of clarity and at the cost of repetition, looking to
the records before us, it is clear that the preliminary notification was
published on 12.07.1962 followed by final notification on 16.01.1969.
The possession of the subject land was taken in 1970 and the road
was constructed which is in public use since then. In the case of other
land owners, award was passed on 22.09.1986, discriminating the
land owner/appellant herein. Even after directions of the High Court
in order dated 29.09.2009 to pass an award by 30.04.2010, it was
passed ‘ex-parte’ after three years on 30.04.2013 during pendency
of this appeal without adhering to the mandate of Section 12(2) of
the LA Act. Consequently, appellant could not get compensation of
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 181
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.
the land since last five decades. In view of the said conduct, we are
of the considered view that the value of the land which may be on
the date of preliminary notification cannot be equated on the date of
passing of ‘ex-parte’ award. As per Section 48-A of LA Act, which is
legislatively applicable as per the Schedule of NIT Act, it is clear that
if the award is not passed within a period of two years from the date
of final notification, compensation for the damages suffered due to
delay is required to be determined as prescribed therein. Therefore,
in the peculiar facts of this case and to meet the ends of justice, we
deem it appropriate to mould the relief and direct that the SLAO shall
pass a fresh award taking market value as on the date when the
‘ex-parte’ award was passed, i.e., 30.04.2013. Needless to observe
that, other statutory benefits shall be reckoned and payable from the
date of preliminary notification as per the provisions of the LA Act.
We are also of the firm view that the appellant shall be entitled for
compensation for damages due to delay as specified under Section
48-A of the LA Act within a period of four months.
35. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed
in part with the following directions –
1. As the land has been acquired under the NIT Act, therefore,
in view of judgment of Nagpur Improvement Trust (supra) &
Bankatlal (supra), the benefit of Section 11-A of LA Act (lapse
of land acquisition proceedings), shall not be available to the
appellant and the findings in this regard recorded by the High
Court are hereby affirmed.
2. The rejection of request of appellant for grant of alternate piece
of land by NIT, does not warrant any interference in the facts
of this case.
3. The ‘ex-parte’ award dated 30.04.2013 shall not be given effect to
and the SLAO is hereby directed to determine the compensation
afresh. For the said purpose, SLAO shall take the market value
of the subject land as on the date of passing of ‘ex-parte’ award,
i.e., 30.04.2013 and determine the compensation affording an
opportunity to the appellant and NIT.
4. The appellant shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits
as per the provisions of the LA Act which shall be calculated
from the date of notification as prescribed by law.
182 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
5. The appellant shall also be entitled to compensation for damages
suffered in view of delay as per Section 48-A of LA Act as
modified by Schedule of NIT Act.
6. The said exercise be completed by the SLAO within a period of
four months from the date of appearance, for which the parties
are directed to appear on 25.09.2023.
7. Pursuant to this judgment and on passing the award as
directed, if the appellant is dissatisfied, the cause of action
to seek reference for enhancement shall be from the date of
communication of the fresh award.
8. The other land owners whose land were acquired under the
same notification and who have received compensation will not
be entitled to seek re-determination of compensation in view
of this judgment.
36. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order
as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case : Appeal partly allowed.
