Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Land Acquisition Compensation - When Two Views Are Possible, Prefer The View Which Advances Cause Of Justice Over Technical View : Supreme Court

Rintu Mariam Biju
7 Oct 2022 7:35 AM GMT
Land Acquisition Compensation - When Two Views Are Possible, Prefer The View Which Advances Cause Of Justice Over Technical View : Supreme Court
x

The Supreme Court of India recently urged to take a view that advances the cause of justice rather than a technical view while dealing with matters on payment of compensation to land losers.

Land Loser means a person whose land has been acquired by the Government for public interest and who possesses a proper certificate.
In this regard, a Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed,
"Moreover, when the matter relates to the payment of amount of compensation to the land losers, if at all two views are possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities."
The case of the applicant-MTDC before the High Court had been that 50% of the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court had already been deposited by them on January 20, 2017 in terms of the order passed by the High Court in 2016. Though the latter order was not altered by any Court, the applicants had mistakenly deposited further an amount of Rs. 1,37,50,547/- and were entitled to withdraw the same.
It was submitted that in the order dated 29.01.2018, the Supreme Court had not directed the applicant-MTDC to deposit the entire compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court and the directions in the order dated 29.01.2018 had only been in respect of the amount which was deposited in the High Court before passing of the order by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, the present appellants asserted before the High Court that in terms of the order dated January 29, 2018 passed by Supreme Court, the 2016 order of the High Court stood modified because Top Court had directed release of 50% of the amount of compensation with security and remaining 50% without security.
The High Court accepted the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-MTDC and allowed them to withdraw the aforesaid amount deposited. Aggrieved, the appellants knocked the doors of the Supreme Court.
After considering the facts on records, the Bench observed that a close look at the order dated January 29, 2018 would make it difficult to accept the MTDC's submissions as well as the High Court's order that the Supreme Court's order related only to the deposited amount of compensation and not to the entire enhanced amount of compensation.
Further, the Court said that the Top Court had passed the January 29, 2018 order without raising of any dispute on the part of any of the parties as regards applicability of the earlier decision.
"As noticed, the said order dated 29.01.2018 was passed by this Court without raising of any dispute on the part of any of the parties as regards applicability of the earlier decision in Civil Appeal No. 8056 of 2013, i.e., the case of Wajidmiya Abdul Raheman Shaikh (supra). The appeal filed by the present appellants was allowed "in same terms" and the impugned order of the High Court was "modified".
The Supreme Court's earlier order, according to the Bench, had been explicit that the order of the High Court staying the payment of enhanced compensation stood modified to the effect that 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation was to be released without security and the balance 50% on furnishing security.
The Bench opined that the January order is required to be interpreted and applied on its substance rather than technicalities. "The intent of this Court in Wajidmiya Abdul Raheman Shaikh (supra) had been clear that the entire amount of enhanced compensation should reach the claimants while they would be obliged to furnish security to the extent of 50% thereof."
Unfortunately, the High Court has fallen in such an error by accepting the hyper technical submissions on behalf of the applicant-MTDC, the Court further said.
Before parting with the order, the Court passed by the Court are required to be understood on their pith and substance while avoiding a technical approach.
Case Title: Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin & Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, Through Its Senior Regional Manager Regional Office, Mtdc, Aurangabad, Maharashtra & Anr | Civil Appeal No. 7062 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 827
Land Acquisition - when the matter relates to the payment of amount of compensation to the land losers, if at all two views are possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities - Para 14.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment



Next Story