# \ v. S.U.T.N.I. SANGAM & ORS

- **Citation:** [2009] 12 S.C.R. 929
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-07-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3874 of 2006
- **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-s-u-t-n-i-sangam-ors-25121
- **Pages:** 49

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
ss. 18, 31 second proviso and 50 (2) - Acquisition of land c
- Compensation - Acceptance of, with and without protest by
different awardees -
Reference for enhancement .of
compensation amount - Reference courl allowing the case
"'
of the awardees who received the amount under protest -
Rejection of reference of the awardees who accepted the
D
..
amount without protest and of those whose reference was filed
-I
beyond statutory period - Writ petition by the Association of
land-holders - High Court directing the authorities to
complete process of reference - On appeal, held: The
awardees, who received compensation without any protest not
E
entitled to referencf! - An objection in response to a notice
u/s. 9, cannot have the same effect as if an application has
been filed u/s. 18 - When statute provides for limitation,
compliance thereof is mandatory - It was not permissible to
direct reference to the awardees whose applications were
F
belated - Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 5.
Acquisition of land - Reference made on the direction
of High Courl - State and the parly for whom land was
acquired, not raising any objection in the reference
proceedings - Held: Are estopped from challenging the G
reference.
Interpretation of Statutes - As statute must be read as a
whole - If the principles of interpretation of statutes resorled
929
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A to by the court leads to a fair reading of the provision, it would
fulfill the conditions of applying the principles of purposive
construction.
B
Doctrines/Principles:
Principles of purposive construction - Applicability of.
Statute prescribing a thing to b°e done in a particular
manner - Is applicable to the statutory authority alone.
C
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated on the
requisitions of appellant-Authority and appellant-Housing
Board. In respect of land acquisition for the Auth,ority,
some of the land-holders had accepted the
compensation amount without protest and some
0 accepted it with protest. Applications u/s. 18 of Land
Acquisition Act were filed for reference to Land
Acquisition Court. Reference court granted enhanced
compensation for the awardees who had accepted the
same under protest. Reference court rejected the
reference applications of those, who had accepted the
E amount without protest. Some awardees filed reference
application after the expiry of limitation period prescribed
therefor. Their applications were also dismissed by
reference court. Some land-owners formed an
Association for protection of their legal rights.
F Association filed writ petition and the same was allowed
by High Court directing the authorities concerned to
complete the process of reference. Intra-court appeals
were also dismissed. Hence the present appeals.
G
In respect of the case of acquisition for Housing
Board, the land owner, at the time of fixation of market
value of the acquired land made a statement expressing
his dissatisfaction over the quantum of compensation. He
also stated that he would receive the amount under
H protest. No reference was made by the Collector suo-
,.
-
(
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
931
SANGAM & ORS.
motu. Representations were made for reference.
A
Pursuant to filing of writ petition seeking reference, State
made reference of some-cases which was not questioned
by the appellant-Board. Representations for making
reference for rest of the cases was rejected on the ground
of limitation. Another writ petition seeking direction for s
reference was allowed by High Court. State did not raise
any objection with regard to the maintainability of order
of reference. Reference court enhanced the amount of
compensation. Appeals by the appellant-Board were
dismissed. The judgment was further upheld in intra- c
court appeal. Hence the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals filed by appellant-Authority and
dismissing the appeals filed by appellant-Board, this
Court,
HELD: 1.1. The provisions of Land Acquis

## Text

_Characters 0–39,843 of 92,094. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39843 for what follows._

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 929
.
·.
MIS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.
A
-\
v.
S.U.T.N.I. SANGAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3874 of 2006 etc.)
•
JULY 29, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
ss. 18, 31 second proviso and 50 (2) - Acquisition of land c
- Compensation - Acceptance of, with and without protest by
different awardees -
Reference for enhancement .of
compensation amount - Reference courl allowing the case
"'
of the awardees who received the amount under protest -
Rejection of reference of the awardees who accepted the
D
..
amount without protest and of those whose reference was filed
-I
beyond statutory period - Writ petition by the Association of
land-holders - High Court directing the authorities to
complete process of reference - On appeal, held: The
awardees, who received compensation without any protest not
E
entitled to referencf! - An objection in response to a notice
u/s. 9, cannot have the same effect as if an application has
been filed u/s. 18 - When statute provides for limitation,
compliance thereof is mandatory - It was not permissible to
direct reference to the awardees whose applications were
F
belated - Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 5.
Acquisition of land - Reference made on the direction
of High Courl - State and the parly for whom land was
acquired, not raising any objection in the reference
proceedings - Held: Are estopped from challenging the G
reference.
Interpretation of Statutes - As statute must be read as a
whole - If the principles of interpretation of statutes resorled
929
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A to by the court leads to a fair reading of the provision, it would
fulfill the conditions of applying the principles of purposive
construction.
B
Doctrines/Principles:
Principles of purposive construction - Applicability of.
Statute prescribing a thing to b°e done in a particular
manner - Is applicable to the statutory authority alone.
C
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated on the
requisitions of appellant-Authority and appellant-Housing
Board. In respect of land acquisition for the Auth,ority,
some of the land-holders had accepted the
compensation amount without protest and some
0 accepted it with protest. Applications u/s. 18 of Land
Acquisition Act were filed for reference to Land
Acquisition Court. Reference court granted enhanced
compensation for the awardees who had accepted the
same under protest. Reference court rejected the
reference applications of those, who had accepted the
E amount without protest. Some awardees filed reference
application after the expiry of limitation period prescribed
therefor. Their applications were also dismissed by
reference court. Some land-owners formed an
Association for protection of their legal rights.
F Association filed writ petition and the same was allowed
by High Court directing the authorities concerned to
complete the process of reference. Intra-court appeals
were also dismissed. Hence the present appeals.
G
In respect of the case of acquisition for Housing
Board, the land owner, at the time of fixation of market
value of the acquired land made a statement expressing
his dissatisfaction over the quantum of compensation. He
also stated that he would receive the amount under
H protest. No reference was made by the Collector suo-
,.
-
(
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
931
SANGAM & ORS.
motu. Representations were made for reference.
A
Pursuant to filing of writ petition seeking reference, State
made reference of some-cases which was not questioned
by the appellant-Board. Representations for making
reference for rest of the cases was rejected on the ground
of limitation. Another writ petition seeking direction for s
reference was allowed by High Court. State did not raise
any objection with regard to the maintainability of order
of reference. Reference court enhanced the amount of
compensation. Appeals by the appellant-Board were
dismissed. The judgment was further upheld in intra- c
court appeal. Hence the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals filed by appellant-Authority and
dismissing the appeals filed by appellant-Board, this
Court,
HELD: 1.1. The provisions of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 must be read in their entirety. A holistic approach
is required to be made for the purpose of interpretation
of application of the provisions of the Act and so given,
D
the provisions thereof meet the tests of Article 300A of E
the Constitution of India. The Act provides for a fair ·
procedure. The Parliament in its wisdom is entitled to lay
down conditions for application of other or further relief.
While it does so, it is entitled to lay down a procedure
therefor in its respect. Such a procedure although meets
F
the tests of fairness and reasonableness for the purpose
of determining the constitutionality thereof, ordinarily, the
mode and manner in which the provisions are required
to be applied should be adhered to. The same shall,
. however, be subject to the interpretation of the statute as
G
to whether the procedures laid down therein would be
treated to be mandatory or directory. From the scheme
of the Act, the mode and manner in which the amount of
compensation is required to be determined is in several
phases, i.e., notice to the persons interested, making of
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A an award, the period for doing so and publication of the
award itself. [Para 40] [954-D-H; 955-A-C]
1.2. Section 18 of the Act is required to be read with
the provisos appended to Section 31 of the Act. The
B person interested may question the correctness or
legality of the award on one or the other grounds
specified in Section 18 of the Act. He, even, for the
purpose of payment of the amount of compensation and/
or acceptance thereto, would be governed by the
c provisos appended to Section 31 of the Act. Section 31
of the Act, however, enables the person interested to
accept the award under protest. Acceptance of such an
award under protest, however, is circumscribed by the·
conditions laid down in the provisos appended both to
Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act as also Sub-
...
D section (2) of Section 31 thereof. The said provisos,
therefore, circumscribe the rights of the persons
.,
interested. The right to receive compensation, thus,
having been circumscribed by the conditions attached,
ordinarily, they should be held to be imperative in
E character. [Paras 45 and 46]
1.3. The law does not contemplate that even before
an award is made, a general or vague objection can be
entertained by the Collector. Objection to the award,
F therefore, must be specific. When a reference is made, the
court shall ordinarily be bound by the terms of the
reference. The Reference Court does not have a plenary
jurisdiction. It does not have any original jurisdiction to
entertain an application directly from the Collector or from
G the land holders. [Para 44] [955-H; 956-A-B]
1.4. When the statute provides for a law of limitation,
J.
compliance thereof is mandatory. For the purpose of
applying the statute of limitation, the courts should,
however, be liberal in their approach. Section 18 (2) (b)
H of the Act provides for the maximum period of six months
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
933
SANGAM & ORS.
from the date of the Collector's award. It was, therefore, A
impermissible to direct references to be made after a long
period particularly when the provisions of Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be said to have any
application. [Paras 4.7 and 48] [956-G-H; 957-A-B]
Officer on Special Duty (La~d Acquisition) 'and Anr. v.
B
Shah Manila/Chandulal and Ors. 1996 (9) SCC 414; State
of Kamataka v.Laxuman 2005 (8) SCC 709, relied on.
Mirza Majid Hussain v. State of M.P. and Anr. (1995) 2 c
sec 422, referred to.
· 1.5. The expression "person interested" for the
purpose of Section 18 of the Act may be given a restricted
-
meaning. A State is not a person interested. A company
or a local authority for whose ,benefit the lands are
[)
~
acquired, having regard to the provisions,of S~~-section
(2) of Section 50 of the Act, is not entitled to file any
application for reference. [Para 55] [961-A-B]
'
1.6. The Association, tl)erefore, could file a writ E
application representing its members but, stricto sensu,
it ·could not have filed any application for reference in
terms of Section 18 of the Act. For the purpose of making
such an application, indisputably, the period of limitation
provided for therein must be resorted to. However, there
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a statute of F
limitation should receive strict construction. [Para 57]
[961-D-E]
Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation v. KSRTC
Staff andWorkers' Federation and Anr. (1999) 2 SCC 687,
G
J
relied on.
1.7. In a land acquisition matter, the question of a
body of the persons being represented by Association
does not arise. The statute provides for filing of claim
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A applications as also filing of objections by the land
holders and not by and/or on behalf of the Association
and that too an independent body corporate. [Para 59)
[962-G]
B
1.8. An owner of a land has a right to receive just
compensation. He, having regard to his human right of
access to justice as has been declared by the ICESCR
on December 10, 2008 should be given an opportunity to
make a reference. A person may get an opportunity to get
c a reference only when he is informed about the making
of an award. [Para 60) [962-H; 963-A]
1.9. Constructive knowledge would also subserve
the purpose of the Act. Whether a person had the actual
or constructive knowledge of the contents of a document
-
D is essentially a question of fact. The onus would be on
the landholder to show that he did not have any
..
knowledge of the contents of the award. In a case where
communication gives rise to a cause of action, the same
must be held to be mandatory in nature. [Para 66 and 67)
E [964-G-H; 965-A]
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land
AcquisitionOfficer and Anr. (1962) 1 SCR 676; State of
Punjab v. Mst. QaisarJehan Begum and Anr. (1964) 1 SCR
F 971, relied on.
State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika AIR 1966 SC 1313;
State ofPunjab v. Khemi Ram (1969) 3 SCC 28; Land
Acquisition officer v.Shivabai and Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 710;
Parsottambhai MaganbhaiPatel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat
G Through Dy. Collector Modasaand Anr. (2005) 7 SCC 431,
referred to.
1.10. The State issued a notification directing the
Collector to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 18 of
H the Act. Such a notification, therefore, would amount to
J
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
935
SANGAM & ORS.
a constructive knowledge. It was obligatory on the part A
of the land owners to file an appropriate application within
the prescribed period. [Para 71] [966-D-E]
1.11. The State, however, clarified the said
notification stating that its earlier notification would not
B
mean that the statutory period of limitation provided for
under the Act should be given a complete go-by. [Para
72] [966-E-F]
1.12. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the notification
of the State of Tamil Nadu issued in the year 1981, no C
reference was made as the awards were made principally
during the period 1972 to 1974. [Para 73] [966-F-G]
1.13. Those who received compensation without any
protest keeping in view the second proviso appended to 0
Section 31, it must be held that they have expressed no
reservation in regard thereto whatsoever. [Para 76] [967D-E]
1.14.0bjections, however, appeared to have been
filed in printed forms contending that all awards should
E
be subject to objections and payments would be received
on protest. Raising of such an objection in response to
a notice u/s. 9 of the Act, cannot have the same effect as
if an application has been filed for reference u/s. 18 of the
Act. [Para 77] [967-E-F]
F
1.15. A statute must be read as a whole and then
chapter by chapter, Section by Section, and then word
by word. For the said purpose, the Scheme of the Act
must be noticed. If the principle of interpretation of G
statutes resorted to by the court leads to a fair reading
of the provision, the same would fulfil the conditions of
applying the principles of purposive construction. [Para
79] [968-A-B]
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia
(2008) 3 SCC279; Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v.
Pure Industrial Cokeand Chemicals Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 705,
referred to.
8
1.16. The Court does not intend to lay down a law that
the protest in regard to making of an award must be done
in a manner specified expressly. When an application for
reference is filed, protest to the award is implicit. [Para 82]
[969-E]
C
Ajit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1994) 4
D
sec 67, relied on.
R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal (1957) 1 QB 574, 583,
referred to.
1.17. No case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India has been
made out. [Para 86] [971-D]
H.M. Kelogirao and Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (1997)
E 7 SCC 722;0rissa Industrial Infrastructure Development
Corpn. v. Supai Mundaand Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 306,
distinguished.
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and
F Anr. (1998) 4SCC 409; Vinay Chandra Mishra, Re (1995) 2
SCC 584; JayaChandra Mohapatra v. Land Acquisition
Officer, Rayagada(2005) 9 SCC 123; Union of India vs.
Pramod Gupta (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 1;
Union of India v. Pramod Gupta(Dead) by LRs. Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board v. Status Spinning Millsltd. (2008) 7 SCC
G 353, referred to.
2.1. The appeals preferred by the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board, however, stand on a different footing. Therein, the
writ petition was allowed by a Single Judge of the High
H Court. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof,
-
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
937
SANGAM & ORS.
reference was made. A finding of fact had been arrived
A
at. A prayer was also made for reference to the Civil Court
The Land Acquisition Officer assured them that a
reference shall be made. The promise, however, was not
kept.. In the aforementioned situation, the writ petition
was filed. [Para 92) [975-B-C]
B
2.2. The judgment of the Single Judge having been
actE!d upon and the Housing Board, having participated
--;
in the proceedings without any demur whatsoever,
cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the c
pro1.:eeding was illegal. They not only participated in .the
.Prciceedings but. allso questioned. the adduction of
evidence in regard to the quantum of compensation and
prnferred appeals against the judgment and award of the
Reference Judge. The said proceedings hav'ing attained
D
firnality, the writ appeals preferred by them should not
-./
h;ave been entertained. [Para 93) (975-D-E]
2.3. In a case of this nature, in the absence of any
material brought or11 rncord by the State and/or the
appellant, it is assum<~d that the Land Acquisition Officer
E
is a Collector within the meaning of. Sectioll' 3(c) of the
Act. He was, therefor·e, bound by his promise. ,(Para 94)
(975-F]
2.4. In the aforementioned situation, it would not be
F
"
a case where a statuiory authority has been asked by a
higher authority to pe1form his jurisdicti1on in a particular
manner. No form of pl'otest, is prescribed under 1the Act.
No form of application in writing has alsc1 been
,,..,...,
prescribed. In a giver1 case, keeping in view the object
and purport the statute seeks to achieve, a Collector G
being a statutory auth,ority and having the jurisdidion to
make a reference can waive the same. If a rleference been
made pursuant to the request made by thE! award'ees, it
could not be held to be wholly illega! or without
jurisdiction only because thr~ protest made in regard to
H
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A the quantum of compensation under the award is oral
and not in writing. The form, mode and manner of protest
are procedural in nature. The statute does not provide for
a thing to be done in a particular manner. [Para 95] [975G-H; 976-A-B]
8
2.5. The doctrine that where a statute prescribes a
thing to be done in a manner as prescribed or not at all
is applicable where statutory authority is to perform his
function in terms of the provisions of the statute. It is not
meant to be applied to a litigant. A procedure, is hand
C maid of justice. A substantive provision providing for
substantive right or a statutory provision providing for a
substantive right shall prevail over the procedural aspect
of the matter. In a situation of this nature, therefore, the
Land Acquisition Collector could have been, having
D regard to the principles of promissory estoppel, held
bound to fulfil his promise. [Para 96] [976-C-E]
E
F
G
H
Case Law Reference:
(1957) 1 QB 574
1996 (9) sec 414
2005 (8) sec 109
(1999) 2 sec 687
(1962) 1 SCR 676
(1964) 1 SCR 971
AIR 1966 SC 1313
(1969) 3 sec 2a
(1997) 9 sec 110
(2005) 1 sec 431
(1995) 2 sec 422
Referred to
Relied on.
Relied on.
Relied on.
Relied on
Relied on.
Referred to
Referred to
Referred to
Referred to
Referred to.
Para 29
Para ·49
Para 50
Para 58
Para 64
Para 65
Para 67
Para 68
Para 69
Para 70
Para 75
-
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
939
SANGAM & ORS.
(2008) 3 sec 219
Referred to
Para 80
A
(2001) 8 sec 105
Referred to.
Para 81
(1994) 4 sec 67
Relied on.
Para 82
(1998) 4 sec 409
Referred to.
Para 84
B
(1995) 2 sec 584
Referred to.
Para 84
(1997) 1 sec 122
Distinguished.
Para 85
! "
(2004) 12 sec 306
Distinguished.
Para 87 c
(2005) 9 sec 123
Referred to.
Para 89
(2005) 12 sec 1
Referred to.
Para 90
c2008) 1 sec 353
Referred to.
Para 91
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
D
3874 of 2006.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.12.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1073 of 1992.
E
.WITH
C.A. No. 5763, 5764, 5765, 5766, 5767 of 2006 and 47934794 of 2009.
·-
Ranjit Kumar, L.N. Rao, Sunil Kumar Jain, Ajay Bhatia,
F
.~
Aneesh Mittal, Siddharth Jain, S. Thananjayan, Jayanth Muthraj
(for C.K. Sasi), R. Nedumaran, Pranab Kumar Mullick for the
appearing parties.
~"''
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted in both the SLPs.
2. These appeals involving common questions of law and
fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A of by this common judgment.
3. On the requisition of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the
'SAIL') for establishment of a steel plant at Salem commonly
8 known as Salem Steel Plant, 3651 acms of land was acquired
wherefor a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called and referred to for the
sake of brevity as 'the Act') was issued in the year 1964 and a
declaration under Section 6 was published in 1969.
C
4. Land acquisition proceedings for preparation of awards
were initiated in 1971 during the period 1971 to 1975. 305
awards were made. A large number of landholders being
satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them
by the Land Acquisition Officer received the same without
D protest.
5. Some of the land owners, however, at the time of
passing of the award being not satisfied with the amount of
compensation awarded in their favour not only received the
E amount under protest but also filed applications for reference
to the Land Acquisition Court in terms of Section 18 of the Act
pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof references to the
Civil Court were made. Admittedly enhanced amount of
compensation, as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge,
F have also been paid.
6. Some of the land owners, however, filed applications
for reference although they had not accepted the amount of
compensation with protest which was rejected by the Land
Acquisition Officer. Some of the awardees filed their
· ~-
G applications for making reference after the period prescribed
therefor. Those applications were also rejected.
7. It is stated that most of the claim petitions were
determined upto 1979. Some of the land owners, however,
H formed an association SUTNI Sangam {(hereinafter called and
I
"
J
1
"
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
941
SANGAM & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Association') for A
protecting the legal rights of the agriculturists whose lands were
sought to be acquired.
8. A gist of the circular letter directing reference of cases
for the purpose of enhancement of compensation reads as
8
under:
"POINT I
Awardees who received the compensation amount with
protest and submitted their applications requesting a c
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
after the expiry of the stipulated time.
POINT II
Awardees who received the compensation amount without D
protest but submitted applications requesting reference
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
POINT /II
Awardees who received the compensation amount without
E
protest but failed to submit applications under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act."
9. A clarificatory order, however, was issued by the said
authority on or about 5.1.1983 stating that the earlier F
instructions issued by the Government were not intended to
override the provisions of the said Act and they should be
meticulously followed and, thus, if a person had accepted the
award without protest, he would lose his right to claim any
reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act.
G
10. Respondent Association thereafter filed a writ petition
before the High Court of Judicature at Madras marked as Writ
Petition No.55144 of 1983 praying, inter alia, for the following
reliefs:
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A
" ... a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the Respondents to give effect
to the instructions of the 2nd Respondent contained in
letter No. D.Dis.11/37 48/80 dated 21.5.1981 and Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently direct
B
Respondents 4 to 8 to refer the cases of the persons
included in Annexures I, II, Ill and IV herein to a Civil Court
for grant of enhanced compensation in respect of the lands
acquired from them for the purpose of the Salem Steel
Project, ... "
c
11. In the said writ proceedings, the State Government filed
a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that in most of the
cases the awardees and the interested persons were served
with notices under Section 12 (2) of the Act who were present
during the land acquisition proceedings. It is furthermore
D averred that the awardees in any view of the matter had
knowledge thereabout and, thus, applications of those
awardees who had accepted amounts of compensation under
protest and filed requisite applications for reference, the
matters at their instance had been referred to the Civil Court
E in terms of Section 18(2) of the Act. Indisputably, the appellant
herein was not initially impleaded in the said writ petition. On
or about 19.11.1984, it filed an application for impleading itself
in the said writ petition which was allowed. By a judgment and
order dated 6.3.1992, a learned Single Judge of the said Court
F allowed the said writ application directing that a mere protest
or expression of dissatisfaction of the award without there being
anything in writing would be sufficient for the concerned
authorities to refer the matters to the Civil Court. On the said
premise, the Collector was directed to complete the process
G of reference within a period of one year therefrom.
H
12. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment
and order dated 6.3.1992, intra court appeals were preferred
both by the State Government as also by the Appellant. By
reason of the impugned judgment, the writ appeal was
·-
-(
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
943
SANGAM & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
dismissed, opining :
"15. In so far as the category of persons who did not
receive notices under Section 12(2) are concerned, the
learned Single Judge has rightly directed the Government
A
to issue notices under Section 12(2) of the Act to those
8
persons and it is for the said persons to consider whether
they are seeking reference in accordance with Section
18(2) of the Act or not.
21. Having regard to this settled legal position laid down
by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts it is clear C
that mere protest or expression of dissatisfaction to the
award of compensation without there being anything in
writing may be sufficient and that the authority concerned
is under· an obligation to refer the matter to the Court in
accordance with Section 18(2) of the Act. In view of this D
legal position various categories as indicated
hereinabove, expressing their protest and filing their
applications for reference and some having not even
received notice~ under Section 12(2) of the Act, cannot be
denied the right to refer their cases to the Court under E.
Section 18(2) of the Act and, therefore, we do not find any·
ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single
Judge. Writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order
as to costs."
13. The other batch of Civil Appeals being Civil Appeal
F
Nos.5763, 5764, 5765, 5766 and 5767 of 2006 have been filed
by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14.7.2006
passed by a Division Bench of the High Court affirming the
order dated 30.6.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of G
the Court allowing the writ applications filed by the respondent
herein relying on or on the basis of the decision referred to in
the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra).
14. We may, however, before adverting to the common
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A questions raised before us notice the broad facts from Civil
Appeal No.5763 of 2006.
15. The State of Tamil Nadu on a requisition made by the
appellant herein for acquiring about 90 acres of land for the
8 purpose of building houses through it issued a notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act on or about 26.6.1985 and a
declaration under Section 6 thereof on 4. 9.1985.
16. Awards were passed on 30.6.1988. The land owners,
while the awards were made fixing market value of the land at
C Rs.1,61,538/ per hectare and on being communicated
thereabout, made the following statement before the Land
Acquisition Collector :
D
E
"Award enquiry notice was served on the pattadar.
Pattadar appeared for award enquiry and gave statement
stating that the acquired lands belong to him by
inheritance. The quantum of compensation at Rs.1,61,538/
- per Hectare to be awarded is too low and the lands are
abutting Salem - Dharmapuri National Highways and the
adjoining lands are being sold at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre
and hence compensation must be paid on that rate and
there is no proof.
He also stated that the compensation amount may be paid
to him and that he would receive the same under protest.
F
For getting higher compensation, he requested to make
reference to Sub-Court. In addition to make payment of
compensation to the pattadar, a reference under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act will be sent to Sub-Court."
G
17. However, despite the same, no reference was made
by the Collector suo motu. Representations, therefore, were
made for reference by the Association on or about 10.6.1988.
Reminder thereto was sent on 21.1.1991. As despite such
representations and reminders thereto, no action was taken by
H the Land Acquisition Collector to make references under
y
,_
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
945
SANGAM & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
Section 18 of the Act, a writ petition was filed by the
A
,..
respondents herein praying, inter alia, for -the following reliefs :
" ... this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order
or direction or any other writ in the nature of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in
8
connection with the impugned order of the 2nd respondent
in Na. Ka No.549/96 dated 18.10.2000 quash the same
and direct the second respondent to refer for higher
compensation to the competent Civil Court under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the
C
lands belonged to the petitioners in S.No.475/1 B-0.09.5
. hes. S.No.475/1A.B-0.04.5 hes, S.No.475/1AF-0.05,
S.No.475/1ai-0.07.0, S.No.475/1k-0.03.5 part, S.No.475/
1 L-0.03.5 hes., S.No.475/1A-0,08.5, S.No.475/1T-0.21.5,
S.No.475/1 M-0.03.5, S.No.475/1 N-0.16.0, S.No.475/1WD
0.04.5, S.No.475/1X-0.1.5, S.No.475/1AA-0.01.0,
S.No.475/1AE-0.5.5, S.No.475/1Z-0.106.0, situated at A.
Jetty Halli Village, Dharamapuri Taluk and pass such
further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus
render justice.
E
It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to direct the second respondent to refer for higher
compensation to the competent Civil Court under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the
F
lands belonged to the petitioners in S.No.475/1 B-0.09.5
hes. S.No.475/1AB-0.04.5 hes, S.No.475/1AF-0.05,
S.No.475/1 ai-0.07.0, S.No.475/1 k-0.03.5 part, S.No.475/
1 L-0.03.5 hes., S.No.475/1A-0,08.5, S.No.475/1T-0.21.5,
S.No.475/1 M-0.03.5, S.No.475/1 N-0.16.0, S.No.475/1WG
0.04.5, S.No.475/1X-0.1.5, S.No.475/1AA-0.01.0,
S.No.475/1AE-0.5.5, S.No.475/1Z-0.106.0, situated at A.
Jetty Halli Village, Dharmapuri Talum, pending disposal of
the above writ petition and pass such further or other
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A
the circumstances of the case and render justice."
18. It is stated that in the year 1996, the State Government
made reference in about 80 matters the validity and/or legality
whereof was not questioned by the appellant. Representations,
B therefore, were again made for making reference in the rest of
the cases which were rejected by an order dated 18.10.2000,
stating that the representations had been made after a period
of 12 years.
19. Questioning the validity of the said order dated
y
c 18.10.2000, a writ petition was filed by the respondent in
November 2000. A prayer was furthermore made for insurance
of a direction upon the Land Acquisition Collector to refer those·
cases for grant of higher compensation before the Civil Court
in terms of Section 18 of the Act. By reason of a judgment and
D order dated 30.1.2001, the said writ petition was allowed.
20. We may place on record that the State Government
did not raise any contention with regard to the maintainability
of the orders of reference. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the
E said direction issued by the learned Single Judge, references
were made by the Land Acquisition Collector. AppellantHousing Board participated therein without any demur
whatsoever. By reason of a judgment dated 19.4.2003, the
Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation from
F Rs.1.50 per square foot to Rs.6.00 per square foot. Appellant
preferred appe~ls thereagainst before the High Court.
However, by an order dated 19.7.2004, on the appellant's
failure to comply with the directions given by the Division
Bench, the appeals were dismissed. The said order of the
G
learned Single Judge dated 30.1.2001, by reason of the
impugned judgment, has been upheld by the Division Bench
of the High Court.
21. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Steel Authority of India Ltd., would raise the following
H contentions :
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
947
SANGAM & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
1.
The provisions of Section 18(1) of the Act being
A
imperative in character; it was obligatory on the part
of the land owners to file appropriate applications
strictly in terms thereof and no such application
having been filed by them within a period of six
weeks from the date of passing of the award in the
B
cases where awardees were present and within a
period of six months from the date of
communication thereof in the cases where they
were not present, the awards attained finality.
2.
Both the learned Single Judge as also the Division
C
Bench committed a manifest error of law insofar as
they failed to take into consideration that even
assuming that the land owners had constructive
notice of the award in the year 1981, appropriate
applications for references should have been filed
D
within a period of six months thereafter and not
beyond the same.
3.
In view of the fact that most of the individual land
owners had received the amount of compensation
E
without any protest were estopped and precluded
from filing a writ application through their
Association or otherwise in view of the second
proviso appended to Section 31 of the Act.
4.
5.
F
The High Court committed a serious error in
entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the
respondent association which was neither a
'person interested' within the meaning of Section
3(b) of the Act nor being entitled to act within the
meaning of Section 3(g) thereof and that too after
G
a long period of 20 to 25 years from the date of
making of the award.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 being not
applicable, the High Court could not have issued
H
948
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 12 S.C.R.
any writ after expiry of the period of limitation or as
specified in sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act.
6.
The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition by the
association for enmass reference under the Land
Acquisition Act is wholly impermissible in law
inasmuch as even the Land Acquisition Collector
is required to go into the merit of each individual
case independently.
7.
Unless the impugned judgment is set aside, the
appellant, which is a Public Sector Undertaking,
shall incur huge financial liabilities without any legal
justification whatsoever.
22. Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing on
-
0 behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, adopted the said
arguments of Mr. Ranjit Kumar. He furthermore contended that
Tamil Nadu Housing Board being a person interested in the
matter of enhancement of compensation should have been
given due notice by the Reference Judge. Had such notice been
E granted in the writ petition, it could have been pointed out that
the writ pe.tition was not maintainable.
F
G
H
23. Mr. Jayant Mukhraj, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, urged :
1.
The provisions contained insub-section (1) of
Section 18 being procedural in nature, filing of an
application for reference in writing is not imperative.
2.
By reason of the representations made by the land
owners that they were not satisfied with the amount
of compensation awarded in their favour, they
called upon him to make a reference which has
been agreed upon by the Land Acquisition Collector
and consequently the State Government and the
appellant herein are estopped and precluded from
contending that sub-section (1) of Section 18 is
. ,.
-
·i
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
949
SANGAM & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
mandatory in nature.
3.
The land owners of the area being poor
agriculturists and having not been informed about
their legal rights, no illegality has been committed
A
by the High Court in entertaining the writ petition of
8
the respon?ent-Association.
4.
The right of a land owner to obtain a fair market
value of the land, being a valuable right, the same
would prevail over the procedure contained in
Section 18 of the Act.
C
5.
The High Court, in exercise of. its power of judicial ·
review is entitled to issue such directions which are
necessary for doing complete justice to the parties,
keeping in view the ignorance of the small farmers
0
who are residents of remote villages.
24. The State exercises its power of eminent domain for
the purpose of acquisition of private land as also its own land.
Such acquisition is permissible not only for a public purpose
but also for a company. The Parliament as also the State
E
Legislatures enacted a large number of statutes with a view to
give effect to its power of eminent domain vis-a-vis the
constitutional safeguard provided to the owners of the land, as
envisaged under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
25. While a land is acquired in terms of the provisions of
F
the Act not only a public purpose therefor must exist, acquisition
must also take place within a required time-frame. Provisions
have been made for grant of compensation, procedures
wherefor have been laid down in the statute itself. Unlike some
G
other statutes, the Act makes elaborate provisions for payment
of compensation. The constitution of forums had several
hierarchical levels including appellate forums. A land
acquisition collector is a statutory authority. He may or may not
be a collector within the meaning of the provisions of Section
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A 2(c) of the Act.
26. If he is not a collector within the meaning of the
provisions of the Act, he, subject to the just exceptions to which
we would refer to a little later, would not be entitled to act as a
8 collector for the purpose of Part Ill of the Constitution of India.
27. Section 4( 1) of the Act provides for the publication of
the preliminary notification for acquiring any land in three modes
viz. in the Official Gazette, in two daily newspapers circulating
in that locality- of which one shall be in the regional language,
C and at convenient places in the locality where the Collector is
enjoined to publish a substance of the notification.
D
E
28. Section 12( 1) of the Act reads as follows:
"12. Award of Collector when to be final.-(1) Such award
shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as
hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as
between the Collector and the persons interested, whether
they have respectively appeared before the Collector or
not, of the true area and value of the land, and the
apportionment of the compensation among the persons
interested."
·
29. The finality of the awards is, however, subject to review
by the Reference Court under Section 18 read with Section
F 31 (2) or Section 30 of the Act. Except for the finality of these
three factual matters, there is nothing in the Act making the
award final as regards its legality. Moreover, the use of the
word "final" in the statute only means that there would be no
appeal. The use of the expression "final" or "conclusive" in a
G statutory provision has been interpreted by Lord Denning, M.R.
in R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal (1957) 1 QB 574, 583 in the
following words:
"The word 'final' is not enough. That only means 'without
appeal'. It does not mean 'without recourse to certiorari'. It
H
makes the decision final on the facts, but not on the law.
. '
-
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. S.U.T.N.I.
951
SANGAM & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
Notwithstanding that the decision is by a statute made A
~-
'final', certiorari can still issue for excess of jurisdiction or
for error of law on the face of the record."
30. For the purposes of Land Acquisition Act, proceedings
are carried on by an officer appointed by the Government known
B
as Land Acquisition Collector. The proceeding under the Land
Acquisition Collector is of an administrative nature and not of
a judicial or quasi judicial character. When a Government
intends to occupy a land in any locality it has to issue a
notification under Section 4 in the official gazette as also c
newspaper and give a public notice which entitles anyone on
behalf of the Government to enter i_nto the land for the purposes
of digging, taking level, set out boundaries etc. The notification
puts forward the intention of the Government to acquire the land,
in terms whereof the government officials became entitled to D
investigate and ascertain whether the land is suitable for the
~
purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired.