LexMITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 353 MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. A v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 19501-19503 of2017) NOVEMBER 16, 2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] 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. B c 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 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 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 [1996) 3 SCR 510 referred to Paras CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 19501- 19503 of2017. 353 E F G H 354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. A From the final Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2014 of the High B 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 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. D E F 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 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 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 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 H was with consent. MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 3. The counsel for the appellant urged that fraud was played on 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 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 355 A B 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 wa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.