MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

                    [2017] 12 S.C.R. 353


        MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS.                         A

                                v.

                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

             (Civil Appeal Nos. 19501-19503 of2017)                 B

                      NOVEMBER 16, 2017

                [ARUN MISHRA AND
           MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
                                                                    c
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 6 and 18 - Signatures of
appellants-landowners obtained on blank consent form in 1989 -
Notification uls.4 issued after 7 years in 1996 - Consent Awards
passed in 1997 on the basis of consent forms - On reference u/s.
18, reference court determined compensation - High Court set aside D
the said judgment on the ground that no reference u/s. 18 was
maintainable once acquisition was with consent - On appeal, held:
Reference could not bt said to be not maintainable' as way back in
1995 the land owners had submitted the application that they were
not satisfied with the validity and correctness of consent agreement
and again immediately they filed applications seeking reference when E
consent award was passed - Thus, it could not be said that land
owners consented in 199611997 for acquisition at the rate prevailing
in 1989 - There was no consent award in the eye of law - Reference
court was right in awarding the compensation on market price which
prevailed in 1997 - Impugned judgment passed by High Court is F
set aside and that passed by the reference court is restored.

      lslzwarlal Premclumd Shah & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
      [1996] 3 SCR 510 : AIR 1996 SC 1616 - referred to.

                      Case Law Reference                            G

      [1996) 3 SCR 510          referred to           Paras

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 19501-
19503 of2017.
                                                                    H
                               353
354             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A           From the final Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2014 of the High
      Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in First Appeal No.234 of2012 and First
      Appeal No.2157 of 2010 and Cross Objection No.41 of 2013 in First
      Appeal No.234 of2012 respectively

                                        WITH
B
           Civi!Appeal Nos.19504-19506 19522-19524, 19507-19509, 19513-
      19515, 19516-19518, 19510-19512, 19519-19521, 19538-19540 and
      19525-19527 of2017.

              Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr. Adv, Anirudh Shanna, A. Parikh, Ad vs
C     for the Appellants.

            Preetesh Kapoor, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mrs. Jesal Wahi, Ms.Puja
      Singh, Ms.Shodhika Sharma, Advs for the Respondents.

              The following Order of the Court was delivered
D                                    ORDER

             1. Leave granted.

             2. An unusual factual matrix exists in the instant cases. Though,
      the consent agreements were entered into in the year 1989 for handing
E     over the land in the case of acquisition on a particular value prevailing at
      the relevant time was purportedly mentioned. However, for approximately
      seven years, the State Government did not choose to issue Notification
      under Se.ction 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'). It
      was issued on 7 .6.1996 and Consent Awards were passed on 12.6.1997
      and 5.8.1997 on the basis of consent forms which were obtained in
 F
      1989. Possession had also been taken in 1989. It appears that 80 to
      90% compensation had been disbursed to the incumbent at the time to
      taking possession in 1989. Thereafter it appears that rent was also paid
      in lieu of occupation. In 1995 reference was sought, application was
      kept pending, then notification under Section 4 was issued in 1946 and
G     also declaration under Section 6 of the Act in 1997. Then consent awards
      were passed in 1997 reference was again sought that was ultimately
      made and reference court had determined compensation. The High
      Court had set aside the judgment of the reference court on the ground
      that no reference under section 18 was maintainable once acquisition
      was with consent.
H
 MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. v. STATE OF                            355
                GUJARAT & ORS.

       3. The counsel for the appellant urged that fraud was played on      A
the land owners and on blank consent forms signatures were obtained.
It was not possible to fill dates of events in consent fon11s which took
place in 1996 and 1997. The consent forms even if executed were
rendered unenforceable. It would be unfair to permit State functionaries
to use the consent forms after 8 years as such the judgment passed by
                                                                            B
the reference court be restored.

       4. Learned counsel for the State contended that in view of consent
awards no reference could have been sought. The possession was taken
after payment of 80% to 90% of compensation agreed to in 1989, then
for occupation of land rent was also paid to owners and ultimately after    c
issuance of notification under Section 4 and other formalities the award
was passed in the year 1997. In the facts of the case no interference
was called for with impugned judgment passed in the High Court.

       5. A perusal of the consent form reveals that in the consent forms
most of the columns were kept blank as it was not possible to mention       D
subsequent events, and thereafter, date of notification under Section 4
of the Act and the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act had
been mentioned afterwards that too immediately before Award was
passed which could not have been done unilaterally.

       6. The facts indicate that in the year 1995, a premature prayer      E
was made by landowners to make a reference as they felt that the
consent forms were kept blank and it was assured to them that they
would be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.50 per Square Meter.
However, said amount was not mentioned in the Agreement and figure
ofRs.3.12 per square meter was mentioned in the blank forms. Be that        F
as it may, even if 3.12 per square meter was agreed to, would not make
much difference as to enforceability if such agreements. It appears that
the reference court in the year 1995 directed the land owners to furnish
the particulars of their holdings which was the subject matter of the
consent Agreements. On failure to furnish particulars by the next date
of hearing, the proceedings were closed sine die. Thus, the conduct of      G
the land owners of filing application in 1995 clearly indicated that they
were not willing to go by the consent agreement executed in the year
1989. Thus in all fairness the blank forms should not have been used for
passing awards on consent basis.
                                                                            H
356               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017) I 2 S.C.R.



A              7. It would be highly unfair in the facts of the instant case to ask
        the land owners to abide by the consent terms executed way back in the
        year 1989 and to hand over land to State Government at the rate, which
        prevailed in 1989. The State Government had not taken the steps for
        seven years for acquisition of the land by issuance of the Notification
        under Section 4 of the Act. It was a sine qua non to issue notification
    B
        under Section 4 of the Act to acquire land even with consent. After
        obtaining consent forms and possession, the State Government had waited
        for more than seven years and thereafter only in the year 1996 Notification
        under Section 4 of the Act was issued and consent awards were passed
        in the year 1997. Remaining 10% tO 20% amount was not paid. Ultimately
    c   as directed by the High Court the reference was made to the District
        Court. The reference court had rightly enhanced the compensation and
        .then the matter travelled to the High Court in appeal filed by the State
        Government and cross objection by land owners for enhancement. At
        that time by way of interim order, direction was given to State to deposit
        the amount. The matter of interim order travelled to this Court and this
    D
        court directed that amount be paid to the land owners as per determination
        made by the reference court. Pursuant to the order passed in the year
        2011 amount had been disbursed to the land owners which was
        determined by the reference court at the rate of Rs.21.48 per square
        Meter that too after filing of Contempt Petition.
    E         8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reference court
        was right in awarding the compensation on the market price which
        prevailed in the year 1997. In our opinion, though it was open to the
        State Government to enter into an.agreement before issuance of the
        Notification under Section 4 of the Act, as held by this court in lslzwarlal
    F   Prernchand Shah & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1996 SC 1616, in
        which th.e agreements were entered into three years before. However,
        in the peculiar facts of these cases, it is apparent that the State

"   .   Government could not have waited for seven years after the consent
        forms were obtained in 1989 at particular rate prevailing at relevant time
        to make acquisition in the year 1996 and it would be totally unjust to pass
    G   consent awards on the basis of almost blank consent forms obtained in
        the year 1989. The relevant date of determination of compensation is
        the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was
        incumbent upon the State Government to obtain fresh consent forms in
        view of repudiation made in 1995 the way of filing application before
    H   Land Acquisition Collector, whether the land owners were willing, due
 MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. v. STATE OF                               357
                GUJARAT & ORS.

to lapse of time, to hand over the land in 1997 at the rate which prevailed    A
in the year 1989 but that was not so done in the instant cases. Thus we
are of t.he considered opinion that reference was rightly made and
reference could not be said to be not maintainable as the land owners
way back in the year 1995 had submitted the application that they were
not satisfied with the validity and correctness of the Agreement and
                                                                               B
again immediately they had flied applications seeking reference when
consent award was passed. In the fact of the case it could not be said
that land owners consented in 1996/ 1997 for acquisition at the rate of
 I 989. lt could not have been termed to be a consent award in the eye of
law.
       9. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the      c
Reference court was justified in making the determination of the
compensation at the rate of Rs.21.48/- per square meter and that was
appropriate compensation to be awarded to the land owners. Merely
payment of the meagre rent to the land owners for the occupation, would
not come to the rescue of the respondents not to pay the actual value of       D
the land that prevailed in 1996. There was deprivation of possession and
usufruct for 7/8 years that could not have been compensated in.terms of
meagre rent, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases.
       10. We set aside the impugned judgment passed by ~he High Court
restore the judgnient passed by the reference court. The appeals are           E
allowed. The compensation has already been paid. In case any amount
remains unpaid, the same shall be paid within a periocl qfthree months
from today. The costs are quantified at Rs.10,000/- in each case that
shall be paid .by the respondents to each of ihe appellants within the
aforesaid period.


Divya Pandey                                                Appeal~ allowed.