D.B. BASNETT (D) THR. LRS. versus THE COLLECTOR & ANR. EAST DISTRICT, GANGTOK, SIKKIM & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 02-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
513
D.B. BASNETT (D) THR. LRS.
v.
THE COLLECTOR & ANR. EAST DISTRICT, GANGTOK,
SIKKIM & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2011)
MARCH 02, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Sikkim Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1977 – The
Respondent no.2- State sought to acquire land in the year 1980 –
The appellant pleaded that the said land was not acquired in
accordance with law – Respondent no. 2 raised a defence that the
Agriculture Department had followed due process while acquiring
the land and had paid compensation of Rs.62,645/- to the father of
the original appellant – The Trial Court dismissed the suit – The
appeal filed before the High Court was also dismissed – On appeal,
held: The respondent-State has not produced any notification of
the intent to acquire land u/s. 4, or any other declaration – There
are no records available in respect of the acquisition process – The
respondent-State has only relied on a consent having been obtained
from the father of original appellant for acquisition and the
compensation having paid – On the aspect of the compensation,
only a covering letter is available and not the actual receipt – Also,
there is no proof of the amount withdrawn from the account to pay
the compensation and the payment of compensation – There cannot
be a presumption of acquisition without following the due process
as envisages u/ss. 3(1), 4(2), 5(1) and 7(2) of the said Act – The
burden was on the State to prove that the process as envisaged
under the said Act was followed and the compensation was paid –
There is an absence of both primary and secondary evidence – The
respondents have failed to establish that they had acquired the land
in accordance with law and paid compensation – The appellant
would, thus, be entitled to the possession of the land as also
damages for illegal use and occupation of the same by the
respondents, at least, for a period of three years prior to the notice
having been served upon them – However, the respondent State
was granted some time (three months) to analyse the consequence
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 513
513
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
of this judgment and, in case they so desire, to acquire the land
through a proper notification under the said Act and to take proper
recourse in law so as to enable them to keep the land – Constitution
of India – Art.300-A.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The question is whether the process of
acquisition had been followed in accordance with law. No
notification has been shown to this Court of the intent to acquire
land under Section 4 of the Sikkim Land (Requisition and
Acquisition) Act, 1977, or any other declaration thereafter. In
fact what is claimed before this Court, as also before the courts
below, is that no records are available in respect of the acquisition
process. This obviously puts the respondent State in a difficult
situation, which was sought to be got over by only relying on a
consent having been obtained for acquisition and the
compensation having been paid, as determined. On the aspect of
the compensation, only a covering letter is available, and not the
actual receipt. This Court has also observed aforesaid that an
unusual process of making payment in cash is claimed to have
been adopted, and the amount is not an insignificant amount, if it
is looked at the year of acquisition. This Court even gave a further
opportunity to the authorities to show, as to from which account
this compensation was withdrawn by the Collector, but it appears
that there is no proof even of the withdrawal of the amount, much
less payment of the compensation. The letter dated 20.3.1980 of
the father of original appellant is no doubt a no-objection to the
acquisition of land, but provided compensation was paid
subsequently. This letter does not obviate the need to furnish
proof of the process for acquisition of land or for the determination
of compensation, under the said Act. There cannot be a
presumption of acquisition without following the due process as
envisaged under Sections 3(1), 4(2), 5(1) and 7(2) of the said Act.
The burden was on the State to prove that the process as
envisaged under the said Act was followed and the compensation
paid. Not an iota of evidence has been laid in support of any of
these aspects, except the willingness of the father of the original
appellant to permit the land to be acquired on payment of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
515
compensation, the forwarding of the amount by the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.