IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025 [arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28501-28502/2024]

THE UNION OF INDIA ETC.

APPELLANT

VFRSIIS

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS.

RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

$\mathbf{1}$ Leave granted.

$\mathcal{I}$ The Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)¹ by a judgment and order dated January 24, 2023 rejected an appeal² carried by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, Assam under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013³ from the judgment and award dated February 25, 2022⁴ of the District Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Nagaon in Ref. (LA) Case No. 1/2018. By the said award, the respondents 2 and 3 in these appeals were granted compensation in a sum of Rs.338 crore and odd in lieu of acquisition of $80+$ bighas of land (54+

<span id="page-0-3"></span><span id="page-0-2"></span><span id="page-0-1"></span><span id="page-0-0"></span>¹ High Court $\sqrt{2}$ App./11/2022 Ŝ3 Act $\frac{8}{5}$ aid award

of the respondent no.2, and 26+ of the respondent no.3).

3. The ground on which the appeal of the Deputy Commissioner came to be dismissed is that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the locus standi to challenge the award. The learned Judge of the High Court clearly overlooked that the Deputy Commissioner was the respondent before the reference court and, therefore, clearly had the right to maintain the appeal being an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 74 of the 2013 Act.

4. There was one other appeal5 carried from the said award before the High Court by the Union of India6 , the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force7 and the Commandant, 34 Bn., CRPF. The said appeal, however, was dismissed as time-barred by a judgment and order dated January 30, 2024 by the High Court.

5. However, these appeals are not at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner but at the instance of the UoI, on behalf of the CRPF, pursuant to liberty granted by this Court by an order dated September 10, 2024 in SLP (Civil) No. 22083/2024. UoI is aggrieved because the entire liability of making payment of compensation of Rs.338 crore and odd is now foisted on the CRPF, which was not made a party to the proceedings before the reference court and, therefore, not put on notice, far less to speak of being heard.

6. We have heard Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant – UoI, Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 – Deputy Commissioner and Mr. Hareshwar Borah and Mrs. Madhumita Borah, respondents 2 and 3, respectively, who are appearing in-person.

<span id="page-1-2"></span><span id="page-1-1"></span><span id="page-1-0"></span>5 I.A. (Civil)/2788/2023 ⁶ UoI ⁷ CRPF

2

7. We need not examine the merits of the challenge in depth having found that the UoI, which has filed this appeal on behalf of the CRPF (the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings), was not heard in course of the proceedings before the reference court. Principles of natural justice, thus, have been observed in the breach.

8. It also appears from the records that the respondents 2 and 3 were initially found on August 2, 2016, by the Deputy Commissioner, entitled to a sum of little less than Rs. 10 crore [Rs.9,69,60,000/- to be precise]. Not having been extended any opportunity to contest the claim of the respondents 2 and 3 for payment of enhanced compensation before the reference court, the UoI, or for that matter the CRPF, could not oppose the astronomical increase in the quantum of compensation whereby Rs.338 crore and odd has been awarded as compensation without, however, looking into certain very relevant documents which include letters/representations addressed by the respondent no.2 dated September 2, 2013, August 28, 2015, September 24, 2015 and December 9, 2015. Having regard to the order that we propose to pass, it is again not considered necessary to refer to its contents in any great detail. Suffice it to observe that the contents are quite damaging for the respondents 2 and 3, if at all the same were issued voluntarily.

9. Although the respondents 2 and 3 have vociferously argued before this Court that such letters/representations were obtained under coercion and duress, we find that neither were the same placed on record by them nor did they make any averment of the same being obtained under coercion and duress in the claim statement filed before the reference court.

10. Be that as it may, the reference court did not have the benefit of looking

3

into all relevant documents which has the effect of vitiating its award. That apart, whether or not the said letters/representations were obtained under coercion and duress are all matters which need to be proved before the reference court by adducing requisite evidence.

11. For the reasons aforesaid, we are satisfied that the said award cannot be sustained in law together with the impugned judgment and order dated January 24, 2023 of the High Court. The same are hereby set aside.

12. We order a remand, with the result that Ref. (LA) Case No. 1/2018 shall stand revived on the file of the reference court. UoI and the CRPF shall be impleaded as additional respondents. The respondents 2 and 3 shall be given opportunity to file an affidavit in support of their claim, with relevant averments and documents. UoI and the CRPF shall then be invited to file their objections, if any. Upon granting reasonable and adequate opportunity to all the parties, including the UoI and the CRPF to adduce evidence, in support of their respective stands, a fresh award shall be made. However, the compensation as assessed by the Deputy Commissioner and paid to the respondents 2 and 3 will not be reduced.

13. Having regard to the lapse of time because of pendency of proceedings before the High Court as well as this Court, we encourage the reference court to re-decide the reference as early as possible and, subject to its convenience, preferably within six months from today.

14. Except to the extent necessary for disposal of this appeal, we have refrained from expressing any opinion on merits. All the rival contentions on merits are kept open.

15. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

4

16. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

.............................J. [DIPANKAR DATTA]

.............................J. [RAJESH BINDAL]

New Delhi; February 25, 2025. ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.14 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s). 28501-28502/2024

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-01-2023 in LAA No. 11/2022 30-01-2024 in IA(C) No. 2788/2023 in LAA No.10014 of 2023 passed by the Gauhati High Court]

THE UNION OF INDIA ETC. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No.232061/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT [ TO BE TAKEN UP AT 12.00 NOON ]

Date : 25-02-2025 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
• For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv.
• Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv.
• Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Mr. Krishna Jyoti Deka, Adv.

Caveator-in-person, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

• 1. Leave granted.
• 2. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
• 3. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA) P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH) [Signed order is placed on the file]