M/S. MODEL ECONOMIC TOWNSHIP LTD. versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 854 · Decided: 26-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
  M/S. MODEL ECONOMIC TOWNSHIP LTD.
v.
                     LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.618 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6, 18 and 28-A(1) – Award
declared in respect of 136 acres of land, granting compensation @
Rs.25,00,000/-per acre – Applications seeking reference u/s.18
preferred by many landholders but not by the petitioner (holding
about 15 acres of land) – Compensation raised to Rs.41,81,500/-
per acre – Thereafter, petitioner filed application seeking
redetermination of compensation u/s.28-A(1)– Application allowed
by Collector vide order dated 06.03.2014 granting same benefits
to the petitioner  in terms of the order of the Reference Court – In
the meantime, matters traveled to the High Court, at the instance of
the landholders – Compensation enhanced vide order dated
24.05.2016 to Rs.2,80,00,000/-per acre in respect of comparable
lands covered under the same notification – SLPs filed by State –
Dismissed – Petitioner filed writ petition for quashing the order
dated 06.03.2014 and redetermination of compensation in terms of
the judgment of the High Court – Dismissed – On appeal, held:
During the pendency of the present matter, Supreme Court summoned
the original record to apprise itself as to the circumstances in which
the application u/s.28A was taken up for consideration by the
Collector – Record indicates that the Collector was given to
understand that no appeal or further challenge was pending
consideration before any superior court and that the matter had
attained finality – It is neither the case of the petitioner nor it is
even remotely contended that despite being aware of such pending
challenge, the Collector proceeded with the matter and decided the
application u/s.28A– Petitioner approached the High Court only
after the compensation was enhanced by the High Court – There is
nothing in the petition as to why the petitioner took so much time to
realise that the course undertaken by the Collector was not keeping
with the principles laid down by Supreme Court – Explanation that
                                        [2019] 4 S.C.R. 854
854
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
855
the petitioner became aware for the first time on 03.08.2016 does
not appear to be correct – For an entity who held more than 10% of
the land under acquisition the way it conducted itself does not inspire
confidence– Idea u/s.28A is certainly to extend benefit of equal
compensation to landholders who, for some reasons had not
preferred appropriate applications for Reference in time but for a
company having profile such as the petitioner, inaction followed by
delay in filing petition in the High Court, disentitles the petitioner
from claiming any relief u/Art.226 of the Constitution – High Court
justified in rejecting the petition – Constitution of India – Art.226.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. During the pendency of the present matter,
Supreme Court had summoned the original record to apprise itself
as to the circumstances in which the application under Section
28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was taken up for
consideration by the Collector. The record indicates that the
Collector was given to understand that no appeal or further
challenge was pending consideration before any superior court
and that the matter had attained finality. It is neither the case of
the petitioner nor it is even remotely contended that despite being
aware of such pending challenge, the Collector had proceeded
with the matter and decided the application under Section 28A.
It is also not the case that the petitioner had made the Collector
aware or brought it to the notice of the office about pendency of
such matter/further challenge. The petitioner approached the
High Court on 15.11.2016 only after the compensation was
enhanced by the High Court to the level of Rs.2,80,00,000/- per
acre in respect of comparable lands vide judgment dated
24.5.2016.  Again, there is nothing in the petition as to why the
petitioner took so much time to realise that the course undertaken
by the Collector was not in keeping with the principles laid down
by this Court.  Looking to the profile of the petitioner which is a
limited company, it can certainly be said to be having resources
to equip itself with adequate knowledge on the front. The
explanation offered by the petitioner in the affidavit pu

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