Excessive Land Acquisition Compensation To Some Landowners Cannot Invalidate Others' Compensation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 27) observed that an excessive disbursement of compensation to some beneficiaries in collusion with officials would not invalidate the compensation awarded to other beneficiaries. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran heard the case arising out of the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision that had set aside the land acquisition compensation awarded in favour of the Appellant, merely because excessive compensation was disbursed to a handful of people. The case arose from the acquisition of land for the Rowghat–Jagdalpur railway line, notified in August 2017. Compensation awards were passed on February 12, 2018, in favour of around 550 landowners. Following an inquiry by the Collector, it was alleged that a handful of landowners had received compensation far in excess of market value in collusion with revenue officials. FIRs were lodged against those officials and specific beneficiaries. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, the Appellant had approached the Arbitrator under the Land Acquisition (Special Railway Projects) Rules, 2016. His claim was enhanced by an arbitral award. Despite this, the High Court, while dealing with writ petitions arising out of the inquiry to which the Appellant was not the party, kept the enhanced amount in abeyance and later set aside the compensation, treating them as part of a tainted process, prompting the Appellant to move to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran called the High Court's approach unsustainable, stating that the allegations of unjust enrichment against a few landowners cannot be used to invalidate the lawful entitlements of others who were never implicated in any inquiry or criminal proceedings. Since only five landowners were alleged to have received the excessive compensation, and the Appellant was not amongst them, the Court said it would be unjustified to set aside the entire compensation, when no such “allegations having been raised in the inquiry report of the Collector against the award, qua the appellant herein.” “We cannot but observe that while the arbitral award and the initial award were set aside the learned Single Judge ought to have noticed that the challenge is only against the five respondents impleaded therein and the setting aside, can affect only them.”, the court observed. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the award determined by the arbitral tribunal was restored.HeadnoteLand Acquisition (Special Railway Projects) Rules, 2016 — Railways Act, 1989 — Section 20-F — Setting aside of Award — Scope of judicial interference — Representative Capacity — The Supreme Court held that the setting aside of a compensation award on grounds of excessive payment, collusion, or "colourable exercise of powers" against specific land owners does not ipso facto result in the entire acquisition award being set aside for all beneficiaries - Noted that out of 550 land owners, only a few were specifically impleaded and alleged to have received unjust enrichment - Since the appellant was not part of the inquiry report, not arrayed as an accused in the FIR, and his specific award was not challenged by the Railways, the High Court erred in applying a blanket cancellation of his award based on a separate judgment involving different parties - noted that the Railways Act, 1989, does not confer any power of review on the Competent Authority or the Arbitrator appointed under the Rules of 2016 - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and restored the initial award and the arbitral enhancement in favor of the appellant, directing disbursement within three months with interest and solatium – Appeal allowed. [Paras 10-14]Cause Title: Niraj Jain Versus Competent Authority-cum-Additional Collector, Jagdalpur & Ors.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 83Click here to download judgmentAppearance: Mr. Shoeb Alam, Senior Counsel, assisted by Adv Sahil Tagotra, for the appellant, Mr. Brijender Chahar, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Senior Counsel and Mr. Tushar Mehta, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.

Excessive Land Acquisition Compensation To Some Landowners Cannot Invalidate Others' Compensation : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Excessive Land Acquisition Compensation To Some Landowners Cannot Invalidate Others' Compensation : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers