SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM versus RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 24-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12  S.C.R.
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM
v.
RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9871 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Claim for compensation – Whether after
the abolition of jagirs by virtue of the Abolition Act, 1953, the
Respondent-Jagirdar or his legal representatives could have claimed
the compensation on the land acquisition being made, particularly
when land vested in the State, the land was not under the personal
cultivation, and when they have received the compensation under
the Abolition Act, and apart from that had also received the
compensation under the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1972 – Held:
It was conclusively established that land in question had been
declared surplus and compensation under the Ceiling Act had also
been received, even though the land had already vested in the State
under the Abolition Act – Once the disputed land had been admittedly
declared surplus in Ceiling Act, there was no question of payment
of compensation to Respondent or his legal representatives in
proceedings initiated later on under the LA Act – In instant case,
there were earlier proceedings which makes it clear that respondent
was not entitled to claim compensation under the LA Act – There
was no subsisting right, title or interest left with respondent or his
LRs, thus, they could not be permitted to obtain  compensation –
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.18 and 30 – Himachal Pradesh
Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 – s.27
– H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – s.11.
Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of law –
Respondent received compensation three times with respect to the
same land – Firstly, in 1966-67 he had received a sum of Rs.28,019
as compensation due to the vesting of entire land in the State
Government and compensation was determined under the Abolition
Act – Second time the compensation of Rs.57,388/- had been received
[2018] 12  S.C.R. 282
                                                  282
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
in the year 1980-81 under the Ceiling Act, 1972 – For third time,
the respondent received compensation under LA Act – Appellant
contended respondent had committed a serious fraud – Held: The
amount that had been withdrawn under the LA Act, was wholly
impermissible and tantamount to playing fraud upon the legal system
– As a matter of fact, compensation was taken for the land in the
proceedings under the Abolition Act – Even if compensation in
respect of certain land was not payable or paid, vesting would not
depend upon the same – Land not under personal cultivation of
Jagirdars had vested in the State, as such it was not open even to
obtain compensation for the very same land either under the
provisions of the Ceiling Act which has been received or under the
provisions of the LA Act – It was wholly impermissible and illegal
and tantamount to scam committed by fraudster – Respondent
directed to refund the compensation withdrawn under land
acquisition to the appellant-State – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –
ss.18 and 30 – Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates
and Land Reforms Act, 1953 – s.27 – H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1972 – s.11.
Word and Phrases – “Fraud” – Held: Fraud vitiates every
solemn proceeding and no right can be claimed by a fraudster on
the ground of technicalities.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The area under personal cultivation which was
saved in favour of respondent was 64 bighas 12 Biswas only as
specified. It is apparent from the order Khata No.1 Kita measuring
1011 bighas 6 Biswas vested in the ownership of Government of
Himachal Pradesh in village Jhakri. The land revenue of land at
Jakhri as apparent from Jamabandi of 1955-56 at the time when
the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land
Reforms Act, 1953  came into force was Rs.155.58 it was more
than Rs.125 as such the land which was Banjar kadim or otherwise
not under personal cultivation had vested in the State. Under the
Abolition Act compensation was determined under the provisions
of section 27(1) and was ordered to be paid by the Compensation
Officer. Though payment of compensation was not a condition
precedent for vesting of land it was automatic, respondent was
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM v. RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER
SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12  S.C.R.
paid compensatio

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