MANUBHAI SENDHABHAI BHARWAD & ANR. versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

ABCDEFGH10211021MANUBHAI SENDHABHAI BHARWAD & ANR.v.OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.(Civil Appeal No. 472 of 2023)JANUARY 20, 2023[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – LandAcquisition Act, 1894 – Constitution of India – Art. 300A – Thesubject land was under temporary acquisition by ONGC since 1996– Appellant (owner) purchased the subject land vide sale deed dated15.03.2005 – Appellants were paid Rs 24/sq. metre per annum asrent – Appellants approached the High Court seeking to quash thetemporary acquisition proceedings or to release the land fromacquisition – The High Court rejected the prayer for quashingtemporary acquisition proceedings and ordered for permanentacquisition within 12 months – The Court further directed that theCorporation would consider the claim of the appellants for payingrent at Rs. 1,000/- per square meter per month till acquisition of theland on permanent basis – On appeal, held: Temporary acquisitioncannot continue for approximately 20 to 25 years and same can besaid to be arbitrary and infringing right to use the property underArt. 300A of Constitution of India – If the permanent acquisition isnot done within a stipulated time as per the order of the High Courtnecessary consequence shall follow – As far rent is concerned, asper s.34 of the 1894 Act if the appellant is aggrieved by thecompensation/annual rent, it is open for the appellant to approachthe Collector.Disposing of the appeal, the CourtHELD : 1. Approximately 26 years have passed and stillthe land in question is under temporary acquisition by the ONGC.If the land is continued to be under temporary acquisition fornumber of years, meaning and purpose of temporary acquisitionwould lose its significance. Temporary acquisition cannot becontinued for approximately 20 to 25 years. It cannot be disputedthat once the land is under temporary acquisition and the same is [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1021 ABCDEFGH1022SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.being used by the ONGC for oil exploration, it may not be possiblefor the landowners to use the land; to cultivate the same and/orto deal with the same in any manner. To continue with thetemporary acquisition for number of years would be arbitrary andcan be said to be infringing the right to use the propertyguaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Evento continue with the temporary acquisition for a longer periodcan be said to be unreasonable, infringing the rights of thelandowners to deal with and/or use the land. As such, in theimpugned judgment and order, the High Court has granted timeto the ONGC and the State to acquire the land in questionpermanently within twelve months from the date of the impugnedorder, i.e., within twelve months from 26.04.2022, i.e., on orbefore 26.04.2023. Therefore, if the land in question is notacquired as per the writ issued by the High Court within astipulated time, necessary consequence shall follow. [Para7][1027-F-H; 1028-A-B, C-E;]2. Now so far as the grievance with respect to the quantumof annual rent paid is concerned, the High Court has alreadyissued directions in terms of para 7(iii) of the impugned judgmentand order. Even otherwise, as per section 34 of the 1894 Act, ifthe appellants are aggrieved by the amount of compensation/annual rent, it will always be open to the appellants/landownersto approach the Collector and the Collector shall refer suchreference to the decision of the Court. [Para 8][1028-F-G]CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.472 of2023.From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2022 of the High Courtof Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Special Civil Application No.9258 of 2021.Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Jatin Zaveri, Neel KamalMishra, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants.Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Deepak Jain, Pradeep K.B., Ms.Jaspreet Aulagh, Tanpreet Gulati, Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Ms.Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Advs.for the Respondents. ABCDEFGH1023The Judgment of the Court was delivered byM. R. SHAH, J.1. Leave granted.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in SCA No. 9258/2021, by which the High Court hasdismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants – originalwrit petitioners for quashing temporary acquisition proceedings, theoriginal writ petitioners – landowners have preferred the present appeal.3. That the land bearing survey No. 837/1 situated at VillageVastral, Taluka Vatva, District Ahmedabad admeasuring 10034 squaremeters is under temporary acquisition by Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd. (ONGC) since the year 1996 for the purposes of oil exploration,which land was undisputedly purchased by appellant No.1 under aregistered sale deed dated 15.03.2005. It is required to be noted that assuch now the land in question falls in the city of Ahmedabad and itcannot be disputed that the prices of the land have increased manyfoldand even the surrounding lands are already developed. At present, theappellants are being paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 24/- per squaremeter per annum for temporary acquisition.3.1 That the appellants herein approached the High Court in theyear 2016 by way of SCA No. 3992/2016 seeking a direction to therespondents to either acquire the land on permanent basis or release theland from acquisition. The said writ petition came to be disposed of videorder dated 23.02.2017 on the stand taken by the respondents that theywill initiate the process for acquiring the land permanently. Howeverthereafter no concrete steps were taken to acquire the land permanently.On the contrary, ONGC approached the Special Land AcquisitionOfficer/Collector. The Land Acquisition Officer addressed acommunication to the Deputy Collector that there shall be huge costinvolvement in acquiring the land on permanent basis under the newLand Acquisition Act, 2013. However thereafter the acquisitionproceedings were kept on hold and the appellants continued to be paidthe rent @ Rs. 24/- per square meter per annum for temporary acquisition.That after the disposal of the writ petition in 2017 and though it wasassured that the process for permanently acquiring the land would beinitiated, nothing was done thereafter and therefore the appellants againMANUBHAI SENDHABHAI BHARWAD v. OIL ANDNATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.] ABCDEFGH1024SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.approached the High Court for quashing of the acquisition proceedingsand to direct the respondents to release the said land from temporaryacquisition and to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the landin question to the appellants.3.2 It was the case on behalf of the appellants that to continue thetemporary acquisition for nearly 25 years would be absolutelyunreasonable and arbitrary and that too by paying abysmally low rent. Itwas pointed out that in the neighbouring area, Ahmedabad Metro RailCorporation is paying Rs. 1000/- per square meter per month as rentwhereas now the rate of rent fixed for the subject land is Rs. 30/- persquare meter per annum.3.3 In response to the notice issued by the High Court, therespondents appeared before the High Court. It was again submittedthat the competent authority has accorded approval for acquisition ofthe subject land on permanent basis and the same is under process. Astatement was made on behalf of the ONGC before the High Court thatthe acquisition proceedings would be concluded within 12 months. Anundertaking on behalf of the ONGC was also placed on record. Relyingupon the said undertaking, the High Court, by the impugned judgmentand order, has rejected the prayer for quashing temporary acquisitionproceedings. However, taking note of the fact that the Corporation madea show of having paid enhanced rent from Rs. 24/- per square meter perannum to Rs. 30/- per square meter per annum, which can be said to beabysmally on the lower side and not commensurate with the prevalentmarket rent and the statutory authorities of the State under similarcircumstances having paid Rs. 1,000/- per square meter per month, theHigh Court has directed that the Corporation would consider the claimof the appellants for paying rent at Rs. 1,000/- per square meter permonth till acquisition of the land on permanent basis from the date ofpurchase of the land by the appellants i.e., from 15.3.2005.3.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court refusing to quash the temporaryacquisition proceedings and as such not passing any order to increasethe rent per month for temporary acquisition, the landowners havepreferred the present appeal.4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the appellants – landowners has vehementlysubmitted that to continue the temporary acquisition for number of years, ABCDEFGH1025namely, in the present case, twenty five years and that too on paymentof a meagre rent per annum is nothing but arbitrary, unreasonable andviolative of right to hold property guaranteed under Article 300A of theConstitution of India.4.1 It is submitted that even in the year 2016, an assurance wasgiven to the High Court that to acquire the land permanently, proceedingsshall be initiated and on that assurance the High Court disposed of theearlier writ petition. It is submitted that thereafter also, after a period ofsix years, no further concrete steps are taken to acquire the landpermanently and the appellants are being paid meagre rent at present atthe rate of Rs. 30/- per square meter per annum.4.2 It is further submitted that the area in question in which theland under temporary acquisition is situated is now forming part of thecity area and is a fully developed area and the prices have gone veryhigh. It is submitted that therefore to offer/pay rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square meter per annum and that too for the entire area of the landin the developed area is absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary and violativeof Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that becauseof the temporary acquisition for 25 years, the appellants are not in aposition to use the land in question. They are not in a position to fetch themarket price. They are also not getting the adequate compensation/rent.It is submitted that if the land would have been acquired permanentlyearlier, the appellants would have got sufficient compensation and theappellants would have utilised that money for purchase of other land,which the appellants could not because of non-payment of compensationdue to non-acquisition of the land permanently.5. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General ofIndia has submitted that the land in question has been acquired by theONGC for its oil exploration and production activities on temporary basis.It is submitted that for the aforesaid the landowners are being paid theannual rent revised from time to time by the Committee comprisingCollector, Town Planning Officer, Deputy Collector, Assistant Collector,Special Land Acquisition Officer and the representative of the ONGCwith respect to the land situated in Gujarat. It is submitted that theappellants are accepting the periodically revised upward rent voluntarily.5.1 It is further submitted that after the High Court passed anorder in Special Civil Application No.3992/2016, which was disposed ofon the statement made by the respondents that they would initiate theMANUBHAI SENDHABHAI BHARWAD v. OIL ANDNATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.] ABCDEFGH1026SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.process of permanent acquisition, on 23.5.2018, Revenue Department,Government of Gujarat published a notification stating that the land inquestion is required by the ONGC for public purpose declaring its intentionto acquire the land for development of its infrastructure. It is submittedthat after the notification dated 23.5.2018, again on 22.07.2019, RevenueDepartment of Government of Gujarat published a notification relatingto land in question required by the ONGC for public purpose, the samewas issued under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafterreferred to as the ‘2013 Act’). It is submitted that however thereafteron 21.10.2019 through internal communication, GM(HR) I/c LAQSection, ONGC, Ahmedabad was informed that the permanent acquisitionof the land in question is put on hold and the proposal detailing number ofacquisition to be made at Ahmedabad Asset, including its financialimplications have been sent for appraisal to the Executive Committee/ONGC Board. It is submitted that therefore the respondent-ONGC hasfull intention to proceed with the permanent acquisition, but due to thereasons so stated in the letter dated 21.10.2019, the process for permanentacquisition was put on hold. It is therefore submitted that the respondent-ONGC needs more time to make the acquisition process in conformitywith 2013 Act, to acquire the land permanently.5.2 Now so far as the grievance on behalf of the appellants thatthey are being paid meagre annual rent is concerned, it is submitted thatas such In-house Executive Committee of the ONGC revises the rateafter every three years. It is submitted that the rate of rent is revisedrecently as well with effect from 1.2.2021 from Rs. 24/- per squaremeter to Rs. 30/- per square meter for the lands acquired directly byONGC on temporary basis. It is submitted that periodical upward rent isaccepted voluntarily by the appellants. It is submitted that the appellantsagain claiming the annual rent/revision of annual rent considering themarket value/market price of the land in question.6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.At the outset, it is required to be noted that the land in questionowned by the appellants has been under temporary acquisition by therespondent-ONGC since the year 1996 for the purposes of its oilexploration. The land in question has been purchased by the first appellantunder a registered sale deed dated 15.3.2005. Therefore, as such, at thetime when appellant No.1 purchased the land in question, the land inquestion was under temporary acquisition by the ONGC. Be that as it ABCDEFGH1027may, on and from 15.3.2005, appellant No. 1 is the owner of the land inquestion and therefore can question the temporary acquisition if thetemporary acquisition has been continued for a long period. It is to benoted that the land in question now falls in the city of Ahmedabad andthe prices of the land have increased manyfold. The appellants are beingpaid the annual rent @ Rs. 30/- per square meter per annum as revised.As observed hereinabove, the land in question is under temporaryacquisition by the ONGC since the year 1996 for its oil exploration. Thesame is under temporary acquisition under Section 35 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘1894 Act’). Section 35 of the 1894 Actreads as under:“35. Temporary occupation of waste or arable land, procedurewhen difference as to compensation exists – (1) Subject to theprovisions of Part VII of this Act, whenever it appears to theappropriate Government that the temporary occupation and useof any waste or arable land are needed for any public purpose, orfor a company, the appropriate Government may direct theCollector to procure the occupation and use of the same for suchterms as it shall think fit, not exceeding three years fromcommencement of such occupation.(2) The Collector shall thereupon give notice in writing to thepersons interested in such land of the purpose for which the sameis needed, and shall, for the occupation and use thereof, for suchterm as aforesaid, and for the materials (if any) to be takentherefrom, pay to them such compensation, either in a gross sumof money, or by monthly or other periodical payments, as shall beagreed upon in writing between him and such persons respectively.(3) In case the Collector and the persons interested differ as tothe sufficiency of the compensation or apportionment thereof, theCollector shall refer such difference to the decision of the Court.”7. Approximately 26 years have passed and still the land in questionis under temporary acquisition by the ONGC. If the land is continued tobe under temporary acquisition for number of years, meaning and purposeof temporary acquisition would lose its significance. Temporary acquisitioncannot be continued for approximately 20 to 25 years. It cannot be disputedthat once the land is under temporary acquisition and the same is beingused by the ONGC for oil exploration, it may not be possible for thelandowners to use the land; to cultivate the same and/or to deal with thesame in any manner. To continue with the temporary acquisition forMANUBHAI SENDHABHAI BHARWAD v. OIL ANDNATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.] ABCDEFGH1028SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.number of years would be arbitrary and can be said to be infringing theright to use the property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitutionof India. Even to continue with the temporary acquisition for a longerperiod can be said to be unreasonable, infringing the rights of thelandowners to deal with and/or use the land.However, from the material on record, it appears that in the year2018 and after the High Court disposed of the earlier writ petition on thesubmission made on behalf of the ONGC that the land in question shallbe acquired permanently, efforts were made in the year 2018 to acquirethe land under the provisions of the 2013 Act. However, thereafter thesame is put on hold by the Land Acquisition Officer/State Governmentand the reason seems to be the higher value of the land to be paid towardscompensation. Even before this Court also, learned counsel appearingon behalf of the ONGC has prayed for some further time to acquire theland in question permanently. As such, in the impugned judgment andorder, the High Court has granted time to the ONGC and the State toacquire the land in question permanently within twelve months from thedate of the impugned order, i.e., within twelve months from 26.04.2022,i.e., on or before 26.04.2023. Therefore, as such, a writ of mandamus isalready issued by the High Court directing the Corporation ONGC tocomplete the acquisition proceedings on or before 26.04.2023. Therefore,if the land in question is not acquired as per the writ issued by the HighCourt within a stipulated time, necessary consequence shall follow. Therespondent-ONGC is directed to act as per the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court, more particularly para 7(ii), failing whichnecessary consequence shall follow.8. Now so far as the grievance with respect to the quantum ofannual rent paid is concerned, the High Court has already issued directionsin terms of para 7(iii) of the impugned judgment and order. Even otherwise,as per section 34 of the 1894 Act, if the appellants are aggrieved by theamount of compensation/annual rent, it will always be open to theappellants/landowners to approach the Collector and the Collector shallrefer such reference to the decision of the Court.9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the presentappeal stands disposed of in terms of the above.Ankit GyanAppeal disposed of.(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Aarsh Choudhary, LCRAs)