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

- **Citation:** [2018] 12 S.C.R. 282
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-09-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 9871 of 2018
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/satluj-jal-vidyut-nigam-v-raj-kumar-rajinder-singh-dead-through-lrs-ors-32481
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,891 of 106,711. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39891 for what follows._

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 compensation also for the land mentioned in the order of
Compensation Officer. Even if the compensation was not paid for
some land, as that was not under personal cultivation had also
automatically vested free from all encumbrances in the State.
[Paras 44, 45] [303-D-H; 304-A]
Jadab Singh & Ors. v. The Himachal Pradesh
Administration & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 1008 - referred
to.
2. The fact is conclusively established that land in question
had been declared as surplus and compensation under the H.P.
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 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 repsondent or to his legal representatives in
proceedings initiated later on in the year 1987 under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector in 1989
was justified in directing that the compensation determined should
not be paid due to the effect of the Ceiling Act and that question
was raised in the Reference Court also, it was incumbent upon
the Reference Court to go into the aforesaid aspects. Thus, once
land has been declared surplus and compensation has been
received. It was not open to receive it again in the land acquisition
case. [Para 54] [309-D-G]
3. The Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated in the
year 1987 for the acquisition of land whereas the order of ceiling
was passed earlier in 1980 and 1985 and subsequently the surplus
area was increased in 1993. By no stretch of any principle of law,
respondent or his successors could have claimed compensation
in the proceedings in question initiated under the LA Act in the
year 1987. The respondent and his family were not entitled to
claim any monetary compensation under the LA Act for the said
land. 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 has been 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
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 fraudsters. The
cases were withdrawn one after the other just to perpetuate the
fraud on the legal system by raising the inconsistent pleas and
taking unfair and undue advantage of the wrong continuation of
entries in the revenue papers. Resultantly, respondent or LRs
shall refund the compensation withdrawn in the case of land
acquisition to the appellant/State. [Paras 59 and 78] [312-E-G;
313-A; 326-F-G]
Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (2002) 3 SCC 705 : [2002]
2 SCR 404; Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India (2004)
7 SCC 362 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 956; Ahad Brothers
v. State of M.P. (2005) 1 SCC 545 : [2004] 6 Suppl.
SCR 191 ; U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan
Devi (1995) 2 SCC 326 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 646;
Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (2003) 3 SCC 128; Ram
Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319 :
[2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 543; Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar
v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 6 SCC 557; Jai Narain
Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf (2006) 7 SCC
756 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 325; State of A.P. v.
T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149: 2005]
1 Suppl. SCR 809; A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.
(2007) 4 SCC 221 : [2007] 3 SCR 603; S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 :
[1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 422; K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi
(1998) 3 SCC 573 : [1998] 1 SCR 601; Ujjagar Singh
v. Collector, Bhatinda (1996) 5 SCC 14 ; [1996]
4 Suppl. SCR 239; State of H.P. v. Harnama (2004) 13
SCC 534; Madan Kishore v. Major Sudhir Sewal
(2008) 8 SCC 744: [2008] 12 SCR 1154 - referred
to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1960 SC 1008
referred to
Para 48
[2002] 2 SCR 404
referred to
Para 60
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM v. RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER
SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
[2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 956
referred to
Para 60
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 191
referred to
Para 60
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 646
referred to
Para 60
(2003) 3 SCC 128
referred to
Para 62
[2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 543
referred to
Para 67
(2015) 6 SCC 557
referred to
Para 68
[2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 325
referred to
Para 69
[2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 809
referred to
Para 70
[2007] 3 SCR 603
referred to
Para 71
[1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 422
referred to
Para 72
[1998] 1 SCR 601
referred to
Para 73
[1996] 4 Suppl. SCR 239
referred to
Para 74
(2004) 13 SCC 534
referred to
Para 75
[2008] 12 SCR 1154
referred to
Para76
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9871
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2008 of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Regular First Appeal No. 243
of 1991
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 9872-9873, 9874, 9875, 9876, 9877, 9878, 9879,
9880 of 2018.
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Abhinav Mukerji, AAG, Guru Krishan Kumar,
Vinay Kuthiala, Yatinder Singh, Sr. Advs., Rama Kant Sharma, B. K.
Satija, K. K. Upadhaya, Shaurya Kuthiala, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Bihu
Sharma, Ms. Urnima Krishna, Siddharth Garg, Sumit Raj Sharma, Dinesh
Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Deepak Mishra, Naresh
K. Sharma, Himinder Lal, Dr. Ashutosh Garg, Ms. Promila, Y. P. Dhingra,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
287
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The question involved is whether after the abolition of Jagirs by
virtue of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and
Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abolition Act'),
the late Jagirdar or his legal representatives could have claimed the
compensation on the land acquisition being made particularly when land
has vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the land was not under the
personal cultivation, and particularly when they have received the
compensation under the Abolition Act, apart from that had also received
the compensation under the provisions of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act").
3. The facts project how a litigant has filed a slew of litigations
one after the other and faced with a situation that it was likely to be
dismissed, he would withdraw it; again, file it on new grounds, or having
lost it, would withdraw it again at appellate stage, and in the meantime,
in different proceedings by playing fraud, getting unjust enrichment by
receiving compensation at the expense of public exchequer.
4. The facts in the instant case reveal that Late Rajinder Singh,
son of erstwhile ruler Late Maharaja Padam Singh was Jagirdar of the
land, and thus was recorded as owner of thousands of bighas of land in
Tehsil Rampur, Sub-Tehsil Nankhari and Tehsil Rohru of erstwhile
Mohasu district which is presently a part of Shimla district and Tehsil
Nichhar of district Kinnaur of State of Himachal Pradesh.
5. The land in village 'Jhakri' of 393 khasra numbers admeasuring
1011 bighas, 6 Biswas was declared to have vested in the State under
section 27 of the Abolition Act and the intermediary Rajinder Singh as
per order dated 14.11.1962 was permitted to retain only 64.12 bighas of
land which was under his personal cultivation. In Himachal Pradesh,
one acre comprises 5 bighas of land. Vide order dated 19.9.1964 passed
by the Assistant Collector, the order of vesting was modified to the extent
that he was given 13 bighas 12 Biswas of land comprised in Khatauni
No.1 out of 14 Khasra numbers, i.e., 14, 122, 125, 142, 143, 165, 212,
238, 241, 288, 423, 494, 511 and 512. Some of the aforesaid survey
numbers were unmeasured. However, the fact remains that the total
area which was found to be under personal cultivation, was 13 bighas,
12 Biswas.
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM v. RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER
SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
6. Late Jagirdar Rajinder Singh assailed the order of vesting dated
14.11.1962 by filing W.P. [C] No. 15/1962. Before the Judicial
Commissioner who used to hear writ petitions at the relevant time, held
that the land which was not under personal cultivation, would not vest in
the State unless and until compensation was paid.
7. Pursuant to the order of vesting, the competent authority under
the Abolition Act i.e. Compensation Officer, Mahasu, vide order dated
12.4.1966 determined the compensation of Rs.28,019.45. Since the
Zamindar had already received an amount of Rs.1,703.25 in excess from
the tenants who had acquired proprietary rights under section 11 of the
Abolition Act, same was deducted from the amount and the amount
payable was found to be Rs.26,316.20 and it was actually paid on
6.5.1966.
8. As against the order passed by the Compensation Officer dated
12.4.1966, the appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Mahasu.
The appeal was partly allowed and the direction which was made of
deduction of Rs.1703.25 was set aside and the payment of entire
Rs.28,019.45 was ordered without aforesaid deduction.
9. As against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner dated
14.11.1962, the matter travelled to this Court in C.A. Nos.1186-1191/
1966. This Court held that vesting under section 27, the right, title and
interest of the owner in landholding in case land revenue of the holding
exceed Rs.125 per year, would vest free from all encumbrances in the
State Government and the vesting is automatic and without being
contingent on the happening of any other event. Compensation and
rehabilitation grant can be determined and paid later. This Court in the
order dated 17.9.1969 made the following observations:
"It is apparent that S.27 deals with lands the annual land revenue
of which exceeds Rs.125 per year. It says in unequivocal terms
that the right. title and interest of the owner in such lands shall be
deemed to have been transferred land vested in the State
Government free from all encumbrances. This essentially means
that on the enforcement of the Act the vesting takes place
automatically and without being contingent on the happening of
any other event. The High Court in the full Bench decision referred
to above took the same view and was right in observing that
wherever the legislature intended to defer the date of vesting such
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
as in S.11 and 15 clear provisions were made to that effect and
the reasons thereof were obvious. In 8.11 the tenant had to exercise
the option to acquire the right. title and interest of the landowner.
The vesting of such rights-would necessary depends on the time
of the exercise of such option. Similarly in 8.15. a future date had
to be provided in view of its special provisions. We do not consider
that the provisions of sub S.53 (3) and (4) of S.27 contain any
indication that the vesting of rights of ownership in the Government
would be dependent on the determination of compensation. The
vesting takes place under sub-S. (1) immediately on the
enforcement of the Act. Thereafter, under sub-S. (3) compensation
has to be paid to the landowner in accordance with the provisions
mentioned therein. Under sub 8(4) the State Government shall
transfer the rights of ownership to a tenant who cultivates the
land only on payment of compensation. That cannot prevent or
have any bearing on the vesting which takes place under sub
S(1). The payment of rehabilitation grant which is provided by
sub 8(5) to a small landowner strengthens the reasoning in favour
of vesting being automatic and immediate under sub S(1). There
can be no manner of doubt that in respect of land which falls
within the ambit of S.27(1) transfer and vesting of the rights of
ownership to and in the Government takes place immediately on
the enforcement of the Act and thereafter compensation and
rehabilitation grant are payable.
For all these reasons, the appeals are allowed and the decision of
the learned Judicial Commissioner is set aside. The cases are
remanded to the High Court for disposal of the questions which
were not decided. In view of the entire circumstances, there will
be no order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied)
This Court remitted the matter to the High Court for disposal of
the questions which were not decided. In particular, the question of
personal cultivation of Jagirdar as that land was only saved from vesting.
10. Faced with the observation made by this Court that the land
which is not under personal cultivation vested automatically in the State
and as after remand the High Court was required to decide the matter in
view of the said observations of this Court, Rajinder Singh prayed for
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM v. RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER
SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
withdrawal of W.P. No.15/1962 with permission to file a civil suit. The
High Court vide order dated 9.7.1970 permitted to withdraw the writ
petition with liberty to file a civil suit. Thus, the mandate of this Court in
the order dated 17.9.1969 to decide the question of personal cultivation
was avoided by the withdrawal of writ petition.
11. Late Rajinder Singh then filed Civil Suit No.15/1970 in which
he took a somersault and prayed for a declaration of title and sought a
declaration that the suit property was not the 'land' under Section 2(5)
of the Abolition Act and as such it did not vest in the State of Himachal
Pradesh. The case of personal cultivation was abandoned by him. The
trial court framed the issues; whether the plaintiff was in possession of
the land in dispute and whether the disputed land, in whole or in part,
vested in the State Government? The issue was also framed whether
the land in dispute is covered under the definition of 'land' in the Abolition
Act. What is the effect of the decision dated 12.4.1966? The issue was
also framed with respect to the finality of the decision of the Compensation
Officer dated 12.4.1966, and whether the suit was barred as the order
had attained finality. The trial court also framed the issue with respect to
the aspect whether the plaintiff had received compensation of the part
of the area in dispute and, as such, estopped from filing the suit.
12. The suit 15/1970 filed in the High Court was dismissed on
26.6.1973. The High Court has held that the suit land was within the
purview of the term 'land' as defined in the Abolition Act and the plaintiff
was not in the personal cultivation of the said land. Hence, the entire
land had vested in the State Government under section 27 of the Act on
26.1.1955, the date on which the Abolition Act came into force. It was
held that the plaintiff was not the owner of the said land. The High Court
has recorded the following findings:
"25. In this view of the matter I hold, that the land in dispute is
decidedly land as defined in the Abolition Act and the plaintiff not
being in the personal cultivation of such land, the entire of it has
vested in the State Government under section 27 of the Act. The
two issues are thus decided against the plaintiff.
41. In view of my decision given above for respective issues, the
relief of declaration cannot be granted. The disputed land has
automatically vested in the State Government under section 27 on
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291
26th January 1955, when the Abolition Act came into force. As
such the plaintiff is not the owner of such land. Since the plaintiff
has not proved his "personal cultivation" for such land, the same
is not exempt from vestment under sub-section (2) of section 27.
The executive instructions issued by the defendants, for this reason,
cannot be considered to be wrong or illegal. The plaintiff is not
entitled to any relief."
The High Court in C.S. No.15 of 1970 also decided issue Nos.5,
11 and 12 and held that the suit was expressly barred by estoppel and
also by res judicata. The suit being for the mere declaration was not
maintainable and was barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963.
13. Rajinder Singh filed the appeal before Division Bench of the
High Court as against the judgment and decree dated 26.6.1973 of Single
Judge. The first appeal was ultimately withdrawn by making a statement
by his counsel that the disputed land had been acquired under the
provisions of section 8 of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, and the
compensation had been paid to the appellant. In view of the subsequent
event, prayer was made to withdraw the suit and appeal as it had become
infructuous. However, the High Court on 23.6.1986 permitted the
appellant to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit in respect
of the subject matter of the suit on the same cause of action in case
there was any necessity to file such a subsequent suit, and the appeal
was dismissed as infructuous. It is apparent that the appellant has accepted
the factual position that land was declared surplus and he has received
compensation of the disputed land under the provisions of the Ceiling
Act, 1972. From which actual factual position and admission, he has
tried to wriggle out falsely in the instant matter.
14. The withdrawal of suit C.S. No.15 of 1970 was aimed at
defrauding the court as the trial court has held that the suit land was not
personally cultivated as such, it had vested automatically in the State
Government and it was the 'land' as defined in the Abolition Act and the
plaintiff was estopped from filing a suit. During the pendency of the
aforesaid matter in spite of the land having been vested in the State,
under Abolition Act compensation was obtained second time under the
provisions of the Ceiling Act, though the compensation was earlier too
paid to him as determined by the Compensation Officer in 1966.
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM v. RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER
SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
15. The Ceiling Act was enacted in the year 1972 and it provided
for consolidation of holding and amend the laws relating to ceiling on
land holdings. Section 11 of the Act of 1972 provided that the surplus
land would vest in the State, and would be deemed to have been acquired
by the State Government free from all encumbrances for a public purpose
on payment of a certain amount.
16. On 10.6.1980 the Collector (Ceiling) that is the Sub-Divisional
Officer declared 10,027.5 bighas of land as surplus. It was not questioned
by Rajinder Singh. Compensation was determined and also paid. The
reference was made by the department that the additional land was
required to be declared as surplus. On 5.9.1985, Financial Commissioner
(Appeals) decided references and did not interfere in the aforesaid
declaration of land as surplus, however conclusively held that additional
land was required to be declared surplus. The declaration of 10,027.5
bighas of land as surplus vide order dated 10.6.1980 was not sufficient.
The case was accordingly remanded. The limited remand order also
attained finality. Ultimately order was passed by the Collector, Rampur
Bushahr, Distt. Shimla, on 10.11.1993. It was observed that the
compensation of Rs.57,888.80 had been received for the land that had
already been declared surplus i.e. 10027.5 bighas. It was also held that
in the order dated 10.6.1980, two units of permissible area to the
landowner and his minor son were erroneously allowed, therefore, the
additional area of one unit given to minor son was declared as surplus. It
was held that family of Rajinder Singh was entitled only for one unit and
the final draft statement was accordingly published.
17. The area in question has also declared a surplus in 1980 and
acquired by State under section 11 of Ceiling Act before the land
acquisition was started in 1987 and the order dated 10.6.1980 declaring
10,027.5 Bighas of land as surplus so far as Rajinder Singh was concerned
attained finality as it was not questioned by him.
18. As against the order dated 10.11.1993 declaring additional
approximately 9000 bighas of land as surplus, the appeal was filed, the
same was dismissed by the Commissioner on 30.8.1996. Against the
said appellate order revision was filed before the Financial Commissioner
and the same was dismissed on 18.1.2002. On 1.8.2013 the Commissioner
passed an order upholding the mutation order against which revision
was filed before the Financial Commissioner. Ultimately the review
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
293
petition was also dismissed as not maintainable which the appellant is
stated to have questioned.
19. With respect to the present acquisition proceedings out of
which appeal arises, notification under section 4 was issued on 9.1.1987
for the acquisition of land for H.P. State Electricity Board for construction
of an approach road at Jhakri. The Electricity Board was later on
replaced by Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (NJPC) and later on by
the appellant Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam. The Land Acquisition Collector
passed an award on 24.2.1989 determining the rate of compensation at
the rate of Rs.20,000 per bigha. However, it was observed in the award
that there was a dispute about the ownership of Rajinder Singh. Hence,
it was ordered that compensation should not be disbursed in view of the
pendency of ceiling proceedings. It be deposited in a bank instead of
court. A reference was sought under section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act'). The Reference
Court vide award dated 23.7.1991 determined the compensation at the
rate of Rs.1 lakh per bigha.
20. Another acquisition proceeding was initiated by issuance of
notification under section 4 which was published in the Official Gazette
for the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of residential
colony for the Jhakri Hydel Power Project. On 11.7.1988 amended
notification under section 4 was issued. On 27.2.1991 award was passed
according to the classification of the land. On 4.7.1991, a supplementary
award was passed. The references were made to the Court. The
Reference Court awarded Rs.1 lakh per bigha vide award dated
27.3.1997.
21. As against the award passed by the Reference Court appeals
were preferred before the High Court. It was contended that the land
acquisition proceedings were commenced in collusion with the
Government officials. The land stood vested in the Government under
the Abolition Act. There was no question of acquiring the same. A prayer
was made in the appeals to file additional documents under Order 41
Rule XXVII and to amend the written statement. The High Court
dismissed the said applications along with appeals.
22. As against the dismissal of the appeals and the applications,
C.A. Nos.3741-52 and 3753-57 of 2001 were filed in this Court by the
appellant. They were decided on 3.5.2001. The judgment of the High
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM v. RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER
SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
Court was set aside. The applications under Order 41 Rule XXVII and
Order 6 Rule XVII were allowed. This Court in the final order dated
3.5.2001 observed:
 "In course of hearing of the appeals it was fairly agreed by
learned counsel for the parties that keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and the contentions raised it will be apt
and proper to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal
taking into consideration the averments in the amendment petition
and the documents filed as additional evidence. Such an order in
the fact situation of the case will serve the ends of justice.
 In view of the agreed position fairly stated by learned counsel
for the parties and in our view, rightly, we allow these appeals, set
aside the judgment of the High court which is under challenge;
allow the petitions filed by the appellants under Order 6 Rule XVII
CPC and under Order 41 Rule XXVII CPC and remand the matter
to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties."
23. After the case was remitted to the High Court, appeals have
been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.2.2008.
Aggrieved thereby the appeals have been preferred by Satluj Jal Vidyut
Nigam.
24. The Reference Court decided 72 land reference cases wherein
it was held that the respondents were neither the owner nor in possession
of the land under acquisition, and the land in question stood vested in the
State of Himachal Pradesh. The award was challenged by way of Regular
First Appeal and the same is stated to be pending in the High Court.
25. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP [C] No.9281/2014 arise out
of a common judgment dated 18.9.2013 passed by the High Court. Writ
petitions were filed before the High Court by one of them by Sita Devi
& Ors. being CWP No.2931/2010 with respect to a redetermination of
compensation. They were decided by a common judgment and order
dated 18.9.2013 and it has been held that notwithstanding the fact that
Rajinder Singh may not have a title, the status of the appellants had been
held to be that of bona fide transferees earlier and that order has attained
finality and was not questioned in appropriate proceedings. Thus, they
were entitled to the re-determination of compensation under section 28A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
295
of the LA Act. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam has filed the appeals impugning
the judgment in the year 2014.
26. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the respondent
Rajinder Singh has received compensation 3 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 the Compensation Officer had determined the same under the
Abolition Act. The land, in any event, had vested in the State. The second
time the compensation of Rs.57,388/- had been received in the year
1980-81 under the Ceiling Act, 1972. For the third time, the respondent
has received compensation in a sum of Rs.60 lakhs. The respondent has
committed a serious fraud. It was also urged that Rajinder Singh has
filed W.P. No.256/1979, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and
observed that the respondent has acted unfairly knowing fully well that
the land had already vested in the State and made other observations
regarding successive litigations preferred by the respondent and the
withdrawal of RFA No.9/1973.
27. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of
the appellants further urged that as per the principle, fraud vitiates, the
respondents are not entitled to any compensation. They could not be
permitted to take advantage of the continuance of wrong entry. There
was no title left with Rajinder Singh as the land had vested automatically
in the State under the Abolition Act. The LAO had also directed not to
pay the compensation owing to the ceiling case in which Late Rajinder
Singh has already received the compensation and land had been declared
surplus. The question involved is not of determination of title under sections
18 and 30 of the LA Act but the title stood extinguished is apparent from
Section 27 and ceiling proceedings of which evidence has been permitted
to be adduced by this Court. Even the LAO and the Reference Court
have ordered that there was no title with Rajinder Singh, as such,
compensation was not to be paid. The effect of previous proceedings
and the overall conduct of Rajinder Singh ought to have been taken into
consideration by the High Court. The observation made by the High
Court that it could not go into the question of the title of Rajinder Singh in
the proceedings is wholly incorrect as it is the serious case of fraud, the
title has already been adjudicated conclusively and lost in other
proceedings. It was not a case of an adjudication of title in the present
proceedings. The effect of Section 27 proceeding and that of ceiling
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM v. RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER
SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
Actcase was required to be considered. The High Court could not have
permitted the perpetuation of fraud while dismissing the first appeal after
this Court has remitted the matter to it.
28. It was further urged that the observation made by the LAC in
his award in 1989 not to make payment of compensation, due to ceiling
case was wholly legal and valid. Even the Reference Court has held in
the cases that there was no title with the respondents and the appeal
against the same R.F.A. is pending in the High Court. The High Court
ought to have exercised the supervisory power as there was an error
apparent on the face of the record and to prevent abuse of process of
law. When the principle of 'fraud vitiates' is attracted, the label of
proceedings is not material and the court is bound to look into same and
relegation to a remedy of the civil suit could not be said to be appropriate
in the facts of the instant case.
29. It was contended by learned senior counsel on behalf of LRs.
of Late Rajinder Singh that the question of the pre-existing right of the
State cannot be gone into in these proceedings. The land in question did
not vest in the State under the Abolition Act. Even if the amendment of
pleadings and additional evidence had been allowed by this Court, the
pre-existing right of the State over the property cannot be gone into in
proceedings under section 18 or 30 of the LA Act. It was not open to the
State Government to question the title of the land-owners in reference
proceedings. The State had filed an appeal against the reference order
which was dismissed on 3.6.2004 as barred by limitation. It was also
contended that the land did not vest in the State as it was under personal
cultivation. Under the Abolition Act, there was vesting of land which
was under tenancy only. Land in question was not within the purview of
the term 'land' as defined in section 2(5) in the Abolition Act, as such,
there was no vesting of the same in the State. Though, 1011 bighas and
6 Biswas of land in village Jhakri vested in the State and mutation-order
was made on 27.2.1962. However, certain other lands which were under
personal cultivation had been excluded, later on, the Compensation Officer
also passed an order determining compensation on 12.4.1966 which was
in respect of tenancy land and not in respect of land under personal
cultivation or the land not assessed to land revenue. Tenants have been
given the rights over the land mentioned in the order dated 12.4.1966
passed by the Compensation Officer.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
297
30. It was also contended that the land under personal cultivation
was mentioned in the revenue records as 'Banjar Kadim' which could
not be said to be 'land' within the meaning of Abolition Act nor it vested
in the State Government. The area of Village Jhakri which was left with
Rajinder Singh was 2119 bighas and 19 Biswas. The said land did not
vest in the State. After remand of the case from this Court under Section
27 of Abolition Act, the writ petition was withdrawn and civil suit No.15/
1970 was filed and the same was dismissed by the High Court. The suit
was also withdrawn in appeal as such there was no adjudication of the
rights in the previous rounds of proceedings.
31. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents further
contended that at the time of land acquisition neither the land was finally
declared surplus nor possession was taken under the Ceiling Act, as
such it did not vest in the State unless the possession was taken. The
acquisition of land under the LA Act is protected under the Ceiling Act.
The statement made by the counsel on behalf of the Power of Attorneyholder of Rajinder Singh during the course of the first appeal withdrawing
Suit No.15/1970 was incorrect. As the order passed by the Collector in
ceiling case declaring the land surplus had been set aside by the Financial
Commissioner. As such an incorrect statement was made before the
High Court; maybe it was made in ignorance of the facts. Earlier vide
order dated 10.6.1980, 10027.5 bighas of land was declared surplus and
vide order dated 10.11.1993, additional 9679 bighas total 19706.5 bighas
was declared as surplus. Even if compensation was collected, it would
not make any difference as the land did not vest in the State unless
possession was taken.
32. Following questions arise for consideration:
(i) whether land has vested in State under the Abolition Act, and
effect of acceptance of compensation under the said Act?
(ii) Effect of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act?
(iii) Effect of withdrawal of Civil Suit No.15/1970 in appeal.
(iv) Whether the question of right, title or interest of Late Rajinder
Singh or his successors to obtain compensation can be considered
in the proceedings under sections 18 and 30 of the LA Act?
Particularly, on the basis of the principle "fraud vitiates".
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM v. RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER
SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
(v) Whether the respondents who are claiming on the basis of
patta /transfer made by Rajinder Singh, are bona fide transferees
and entitled to compensation?
Question No.1: In Re. the effect of the H.P. Abolition of Big
Landed Estates, Act, 1953
33. After Independence was achieved, in order to bring the agrarian
reforms, the Abolition Act was enacted in the State of Himachal Pradesh
which came into force on Republic Day w.e.f. 26.1.1955. The Abolition
Act has been enacted to provide for the abolition of the big landed estates
and to reform the law relating to tenancies and to make provisions for
matters connected therewith in Himachal Pradesh. 'Estate', 'land-owner'
and 'holdings' have been defined in section 2(3) of the Abolition Act and
have the meanings respectively assigned to these words in the Punjab
Land Revenue Act, 1887 as in force in Himachal Pradesh immediately
before 26.1.1950.
34. The terms 'estate', 'land-owner' and 'holding' have been
defined under sections 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Punjab Land Revenue
Act, 1867are extracted hereunder:
"3. Definition: - In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in
the subject or context; (1) "estate" means any area- (a) for
which a separate record-of-rights has been made; or (b) which
has been separately assessed to land revenue, or would have been
so assessed if the land-revenue had not been released, compounded
for or redeemed; or (c) which the State Government may, by
general rule or special order, declare to be an estate;
(2) "land-owner" does not include a tenant or an assignee of landrevenue, but does not include a person to whom a holding has
been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in farm,
under this Act for the recovery of an arrear of land-revenue or of
a sum recoverable as such an arrear and every other person not
hereinbefore in this clause mentioned who is in possession of an
estate or any share or portion thereof , or in the enjoyment of any
part of the profits of an estate;
(3) "holding" means a share or portion of an estate held by the
land-owner or jointly by two or more land-owners."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
35.