1992 JTR(SC) 559
1993 AIR(SC) 366 ; 1992 AIR(SCW) 3646 ; 1992 3 CurCC(SC) 324 ; 1992 5 JT 136 ; 1992 2 Scale 439 ; 1992 4 SCC 243 ; 1992 4 SCR 1 ; 1993 1 SLJ 45 ; 1992 2 UJ 723 ; 1992 KHC 927
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. M. SHARMA AND A. S. ANAND, JJ.
Akhara Brahm Buta, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 10543 of 1983
Decided on 24-8-1992.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.23 R.3
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.4, S.23
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (S.4 and S.23), read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Order XXI Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, governs the acquisition of land and provides the statutory framework for challenging such acquisitions through writ petitions in High Courts. The case involves an executed compromise agreement between the appellant and the Improvement Trust for exclusion of part of the land and compensation at a specified rate, which was accepted and relied upon by the Collector in making an award, placing the State Government in a position of contractual estoppel to resist implementation. Section 41 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, confers discretion on the State Government regarding modification of schemes, but once the State has entered into a binding compromise and the High Court has pronounced judgment on the matter, the State is bound to act in accordance with its prior stance and cannot repudiate the agreement. The Civil Procedure Code provisions facilitate the enforcement of such compromises through contempt proceedings where implementation is delayed or obstructed.
(B) The core legal principles include the binding nature of a compromise accepted by a party to acquisition proceedings, the doctrine of estoppel preventing a party from backtracking on its concessions, the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 to enforce such compromises, and the limitation on executive discretion once a judicial determination has been made. The case underscores that an authority cannot take advantage of an agreement in part and then repudiate it wholly.
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a land acquisition scheme. An agreement was reached to exclude 12 Kanals and pay compensation for the remaining land at Rs. 2 per square yard, with the State as a party. The matter was disposed of, but non-implementation led to contempt petitions. The Improvement Trust constructed houses, and the appellant sought implementation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the State was not a party to the agreement.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's conclusion is erroneous. The State, having argued before the High Court and accepted the compromise, is bound by its stance. The Collector's award relied on the agreement, and the State cannot now repudiate it. The appellant is entitled to compensation for the entire land at the market rate prevailing on April 19, 1983, and the matter must be sent to a Civil Court for valuation.
Issues:
Whether the State can be bound by a compromise it was party to, and whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition on the ground that the State was not a party to the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi:
A State Government which has entered into a compromise in a land acquisition proceeding and obtained a judicial decree based on that compromise is estopped from denying the validity of the compromise and must implement it, with compensation payable at an appropriate valuation determined by the Civil Court.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. No land is to be returned to the appellant; instead, compensation for the entire area is to be paid at the market rate prevailing on April 19, 1983, as determined by the Civil Court, with payment within three months.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (S.4 and S.23), read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Order XXI Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, governs the acquisition of land and provides the statutory framework for challenging such acquisitions through writ petitions in High Courts. The case involves an executed compromise agreement between the appellant and the Improvement Trust for exclusion of part of the land and compensation at a specified rate, which was accepted and relied upon by the Collector in making an award, placing the State Government in a position of contractual estoppel to resist implementation. Section 41 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, confers discretion on the State Government regarding modification of schemes, but once the State has entered into a binding compromise and the High Court has pronounced judgment on the matter, the State is bound to act in accordance with its prior stance and cannot repudiate the agreement. The Civil Procedure Code provisions facilitate the enforcement of such compromises through contempt proceedings where implementation is delayed or obstructed.
(B) The core legal principles include the binding nature of a compromise accepted by a party to acquisition proceedings, the doctrine of estoppel preventing a party from backtracking on its concessions, the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 to enforce such compromises, and the limitation on executive discretion once a judicial determination has been made. The case underscores that an authority cannot take advantage of an agreement in part and then repudiate it wholly.
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a land acquisition scheme. An agreement was reached to exclude 12 Kanals and pay compensation for the remaining land at Rs. 2 per square yard, with the State as a party. The matter was disposed of, but non-implementation led to contempt petitions. The Improvement Trust constructed houses, and the appellant sought implementation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the State was not a party to the agreement.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's conclusion is erroneous. The State, having argued before the High Court and accepted the compromise, is bound by its stance. The Collector's award relied on the agreement, and the State cannot now repudiate it. The appellant is entitled to compensation for the entire land at the market rate prevailing on April 19, 1983, and the matter must be sent to a Civil Court for valuation.
Issues:
Whether the State can be bound by a compromise it was party to, and whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition on the ground that the State was not a party to the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi:
A State Government which has entered into a compromise in a land acquisition proceeding and obtained a judicial decree based on that compromise is estopped from denying the validity of the compromise and must implement it, with compensation payable at an appropriate valuation determined by the Civil Court.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. No land is to be returned to the appellant; instead, compensation for the entire area is to be paid at the market rate prevailing on April 19, 1983, as determined by the Civil Court, with payment within three months.
A.S.Sohal, ANANT PALLI, Atul Sharma, E.C.AGARWAL, O.K.BANSAL, PUMIMA BHATT, R.S.SODHI, RISHI AGARWAL, SANJAY BANSAL
JUDGMENT
SHARMA, J.:—In a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the land acquisition proceeding an agreement was reached between the appellant and the Improvement Trust for excluding 12 Kanals of land from the Scheme and to pay the appellant the compensation for the remaining land at the .rate of 2 rupees per square yard. The State was a party and joined the compromise through its counsel. The matter was disposed of by the judment at pages 44 to 46. The scheme, however, does not appear to have been formally modified and the appellant had to file an application for contempt, which was again disposed of by the order at page 48. The Improvement Trust, through its counsel gave an undertaking to release the land in presence of State counsel. Still the judgment was not implemented and the appellant had to file a second application for contempt which was dismissed at pages 54 to 6 by leaving the controversy open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. In these circumstances the present writ petition out of which this appeal arises, was filed by the appellant for implementation of the compromise. The High Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that the State was not a party to the agreement.
2. The conclusion of the High Court is clearly erroneous. The learned counsel for the State has argued that in view of section 41 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 it was the discretion of the State Government to have agreed with the modification of the Scheme or not and the State cannot be forced to take a particular decision. This argument is clearly erroneous as the State is bound to modify the scheme in view of its stand before the High Court in pursuance of which the judgment in the earlier writ petition was given. It also appears that the Collector while making the Award relied upon the said agreement and fixed the compensation of the entire area at Rs. 2 per square yard only. Having taken advantage of the agreement in part and having repeatedly agreed to the terms of the compromise between the appellant and the Improvement Trust, the State Government cannot now be permitted to back out.
3. The learned counsel for the Improvement Trust, Amritsar, has stated that houses have already been constructed on the acquired land in accordance with the scheme and it will be against the public interest to disturb the position now. The counsel for the appellant, after taking instruction, indicated the willingness of the appellant to accept only compensation for the entire land to be calculated at the market rate prevailing on April 19, 1983. We have considered the relevant circumstances and we are of the view that the stand taken by the appellant is fair. Accordingly, we direct that no part of the land in question shall be given back to the appellant but the compensation for the entire area shall be paid at the market rate prevailing on April 19, 1983, the date on which the present writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The valuation will be fixed by the Civil Court in the same manner as it is done on reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Let the High Court pass necessary orders sending the matter to the Civil Court for fixing the valuation without delay and let the Civil Court determine the valuation as expeditiously as may be possible. The appellant will be paid the compensation within a period of three months from the final determination of the valuation.
4. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation: AIR 1993 SC 366
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.