FACTS:

The case involves the acquisition of 131 kms of land, including 6 kms owned by the appellants, for the construction of a Special Railway Project-Western Dedicated Freight Corridor. The appellants raised objections under Section 20D(2) of the Railways Act, asserting that no order was passed on their objections. They sought the quashing of the Notification issued under Section 20A and the declaration issued under Section 20E.

ISSUES:

Non-compliance with Section 20D(2) – Effect on the acquisition.

Validity of the objections raised by the appellants.

Competent Authority's duty to pass a reasoned order.

Communication of the order to the appellants.

Contradictory stand by the respondents on the nature of the order.

Timing of the order under Section 20D(2) in relation to personal hearing.

Strict construction of expropriatory legislation.

Balancing appellants' rights and the larger public purpose.

Compensation assessment for the acquired land.

HELD:

In the absence of an order under Section 20D, no further steps in the acquisition could be taken. Section 20D provides a substantive right for landowners to object before being divested of their land. The right to file objections under Section 20D is akin to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court emphasized the need for a reasoned order after considering objections.

The limited right to file objections and have a personal hearing under Section 20D must not be reduced to an empty formality. The Competent Authority is duty-bound to pass a reasoned order reflecting application of mind.

A valid order must be reasoned and communicated to the parties. Internal file notings or reports submitted to the Central Government do not constitute a valid order. No order rejecting objections was passed after the personal hearing, and the Competent Authority did not communicate file notings to the appellants.

Contradictory stands by respondents on the nature of the order. The order under Section 20D(2) cannot precede the personal hearing. Strict construction of expropriatory legislation is necessary, and deviations invalidate subsequent acquisition steps.

The Competent Authority, being quasi-judicial, must act in conformity with mandatory statutory provisions. In the absence of an order under Section 20D(2), subsequent acquisition steps are invalidated.

Despite finding a breach, the Court decided not to set aside the entire acquisition. The relief is molded by compensating the appellants for the 6 km stretch based on the current market value, as per Section 20G of the Act.

The remaining 125 km stretch stands acquired, with pre-construction activity completed. To balance rights and public purpose, compensation for the appellants is directed based on the current market value.

Despite the breach, the Court refrains from setting aside the acquisition for the remaining 125 km stretch, as landowners are satisfied with the compensation awarded.

REFERRED CASES:

Decided on : 13-08-2019

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 5A and 17 - Acquisition Proceedings - Invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal - A situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the land owners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created - A more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively. (See : Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21)

Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 20A, 20G and 20G(2) - Acquisition proceedings - Compensation - Absence of an order passed on the objections under Section 20D - Challenge before this Court has been made by the Appellants with respect to a stretch of land admeasuring approximately 6 kms, out of the total stretch of 131 kms - Remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms has been acquired, and stands vested in the Government - Respondents have stated on Affidavit that preconstruction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch. Furthermore, most of the bridges are either in progress, or have already been completed - No mala fides have been alleged by the Appellants against the Respondents in the acquisition proceedings - Larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A is quashed - Public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, Gujarat.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. C.G. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. G.C. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Cases Referred

A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : AIR 1970 SC 150]

Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395

CCE vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 597

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chennai, (2005) 7 SCC 627

Indore Vikas Pradhikaranv. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705

J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul, (2011) 10 SCC 714

Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596

Laxminarayan R. Bhattad vs. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 5 SCC 413]

Laxmi Devi vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241

Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496

Khub Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074

Kunwar Pal Singh vs. State of U.P., (2007) 5 SCC 85.

Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1217]

Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426

Om Prakash vs. State of U.P., (1998) 6 SCC 1

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322

Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (2015) 7 SCC 21

Sethi Auto Service Station vs. DDA, (2009) 1 SCC 180

Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705

State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471

State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358

Union of India vs. Krishan Lal Arneja, (2004) 8 SCC 453

Union of India v. Shivraj, (2014) 6 SCC 564

Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 4 SCC 210

Facts:

The plaintiffs contended that defendants 1 to 3 executed agreements for the sale of land, while defendants asserted that the agreements were collateral security for a loan. The dispute also involved subsequent supplementary agreements and possession of the land.

Issues:

The nature of the transaction, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the contract, the application of the doctrine of lis pendens, and the appropriate relief to be granted.

Held:

Nature of Transaction: The court found that the agreements evidenced a sale transaction rather than serving as security for a loan. The execution of supplementary agreements after notice reinforced the intention of the parties towards the sale transaction.

Readiness and Willingness of Plaintiffs: The plaintiffs demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, making payments against the sale consideration. The court rejected the defendants' denial and emphasized that the plaintiffs' conduct was not inequitable.

Doctrine of Lis Pendens: The court applied the doctrine of lis pendens, stating that subsequent sale transactions were subject to the rights determined in the pending suit. However, the court disapproved the characterization of the sale deeds as illegal.

Relief Granted: The court partly allowed the appeal and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 to the respondent No. 2 in lieu of specific performance. Various factors, including the long possession of subsequent purchasers and the enhanced valuation of the land, influenced this decision.

Limitation: The court addressed the limitation issue, affirming that the plaintiffs filed the suit within the prescribed three-year period, and no delay operated against them.

Observations on the Nature of Transaction: The court criticized the lower courts for casting doubts on the nature of the transaction based on irrelevant considerations. The supplementary agreement after notice was emphasized as reaffirming the intention of a sale transaction.

Facts:

The appellant, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), conducts bi-annual examinations and awards the AMIE certificate.

Government recognition was provisionally granted in 1976, acknowledging the AMIE certificate as equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering.

A notification recognized the Technician Engineers' Examination as equivalent to a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from State Polytechnic.

A writ petition challenged the validity of the AMIE certificate for state-related services.

The High Court, in a previous judgment, held that the AMIE certificate could not be treated as equivalent to a degree in engineering.

A review application was filed, and the Registrar of the Supreme Court refused to register the application.

Issues:

Recognition and equivalence of the AMIE certificate to a degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Validity of the AMIE certificate for recruitment/promotion to state services.

Held:

The Registrar's refusal to register the application for clarification and modification was deemed correct.

The appellant, by its own admission, conducts examinations without imparting education and does not fall under the Acts specified.

The appellant's claim of equivalence lacks a statutory basis, as Section 22(1) of the UGC Act designates specific bodies to confer degrees.

Equivalence to AMIE certificates was granted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) until 31.05.13, as evidenced by official notifications.

An exception was made for candidates enrolled up to 31.05.13, declaring their AMIE certificates equivalent to a Mechanical Engineering degree for Central Government employment.

Decision: The Miscellaneous Application No. 2367 of 2018 is rejected. The AMIE certificates for candidates enrolled up to 31.05.13 are considered equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering for Central Government employment.

Facts:

The assessee, engaged in brokerage business, underwent a search and seizure operation.

The assessment was completed, adding amounts for unexplained cash, jewelry, hundies, and cash receipts.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) partially allowed the appeal, deleting certain additions.

The Tribunal, on cross objections, quashed the reassessment proceedings due to the absence of notice under Section 143(2).

Issues:

The impact of the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) on the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

The appellant relied on Section 292BB to argue that the assessee's participation cured any deficiencies in notice issuance.

Held:

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court and the Tribunal that the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid.

Section 292BB was interpreted to cure infirmities in the service of notice but not to save the complete absence of notice.

The legal fiction created by Section 292BB applies only if the notice emanated from the department and the assessee participated in the proceedings.

Since no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, the proceedings were deemed invalid.

The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were imposed.

Facts:

The case involves Assam Public Works as the appellant, challenging actions related to the National Register of Indian Citizens (NRC) in Assam. The matter pertains to citizenship provisions, especially Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Issues:

The primary issues revolve around the interpretation and application of Section 6A, the special provisions for Assam, and the procedures outlined in Rule 4A of the 2003 Rules for the NRC in Assam.

The addresses concerns raised by the State Coordinator regarding descendants of individuals with D Voter (DV)/Declared Foreigner (DF) status.

Held:

The Court clarified that issues related to Sections 3 and 6A of the Act are pending consideration by a Constitution Bench. It upheld the special provisions of Rule 4A and the Schedule for NRC in Assam, considering the unique citizenship category created by Section 6A. The Court directed the State Coordinator to act on the suggestions/prayers made in the report, subject to further orders from the Constitution Bench.

The Court emphasized the necessity for a security regime similar to AADHAR data security before making the list of inclusions and exclusions available. Validity of orders under the IMDT Act was directed to be governed by the Gauhati High Court decision in Anowar Ali v. State of Assam (2014).

Subject to orders from the Constitution Bench, the Court affirmed that the National Register of Citizens (NRC) will be updated.

FACTS:

The case involves candidates who enrolled in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education Mode during the academic sessions 2001-2005. The Judgment and Order directed the candidates to undergo a test to prove the worthiness of their degrees. The candidates were given opportunities to retain benefits upon passing the test.

ISSUES:

Whether the candidates violated the directions of the Judgment and Order.

Whether the candidates were entitled to benefits and advantages from their degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode.

HELD:

The Court held that there was no violation by the alleged Contemnors. The directions were intended to restore the status quo ante for candidates who enjoyed benefits as of the date of the Judgment. The judgment clarified that the restoration was limited to benefits existing on the date of the Judgment and did not confer additional advantages. The Court emphasized that serious objections raised by the Department regarding violation of norms and parameters needed to be addressed through proper channels, such as representation or a properly instituted challenge, rather than through a Contempt Petition. Dismisses the Contempt Petitions, stating that there was no violation by the alleged Contemnors. The Court imposes a cost of Rs. 5000 on each petitioner.

REFERRED CASES:

J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and others, (1996) 6 SCC 291

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 1 SCC 468

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 2 SCC 298

Facts:

Sankara Kurup owned a property with a theater called "Manorama Theatre."

After Sankara Kurup's death, a claim was made by his son, Viswanatha Kurup, asserting rights through a will.

Kumara Kurup, the son-in-law, claimed to be a cultivating tenant, but this claim was rejected by the Land Tribunal.

The Rent Control Court allowed the eviction petition, relying on the Land Tribunal's findings.

Issues:

Whether there was a genuine landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.

The validity of the claim for tenancy and its rejection by the Land Tribunal.

Jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court to entertain the eviction petition.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reappreciating the evidence and acting as a first or second court of appeal. The absence of a genuine landlord-tenant relationship was crucial, and the claim for tenancy was deemed not genuine and not maintainable. The jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court was found to be lacking due to the absence of material supporting a landlord-tenant relationship. The High Court's decision was set aside, and the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority were restored. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the High Court and restore the Decree for eviction as passed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between the Director of Horticulture, Odisha (appellant) and Pravat Kumar Dash and others (respondents).

Candidates were selected for training for the post of Gardener, and the training process lacked transparency.

The Tribunal directed the State to consider the applicants for appointment against existing vacant Gardener positions, a decision upheld by the High Court.

Six persons' services were terminated, but the termination was later set aside in 2001.

Issues:

Validity of the training process for the post of Gardener.

Applicability of Orissa Civil Services Rules and Article 311 to the appointment.

Legality of the direction to the State for the appointment of candidates who completed training.

Held:

The selection of candidates for training lacked transparency, and there was no commitment to appoint candidates post-training.Completing training did not automatically confer the right to employment; appointments must be through fair competition.The direction to appoint candidates based on training alone was unjustified.( Para 17)

The order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, directing the State to appoint the applicants as Gardeners, exceeded its jurisdiction.The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the High Court and Tribunal were set aside.The OAs filed by the respondents were dismissed.( Para 19)

Facts:

Three separate suits were filed against the defendants, including the State of Andhra Pradesh. The first two suits pertained to land in Survey No.9 of 2013 of Khairatabad Village, while the third suit concerned land in Survey Nos.49 and 50 in Rasoolpura Village. The State contended that all three suits should be dismissed as the land in question fell within Survey No.43 of Village Bholakpur, designated as a Government Shikkam Talab.

Issues:

Whether the findings in the first and second suits, which were dismissed, should be treated as a decree and operate as res judicata in the appeal against the decree in the third suit.

Held:

The findings recorded by the High Court were patently erroneous. The decree in the third suit was a dismissal of the suit, entirely in favor of the State, and not immediately executable.

The decrees in the first and second suits had not attained finality, as they were still under appeal before the First Appellate Court.

Section 11 and Explanation I of the Code were held to be applicable in subsequent proceedings, but the findings in the first and second suits would not operate as res judicata due to their subject to challenge in ongoing appeals.

The High Court failed to distinguish between the decree and a finding on an issue. The right of the defendants-State to dispute findings on Issue No.1 was upheld, even without filing cross-objections, as the decrees had not attained finality.

The term "decree" was discussed in terms of Section 2(2) of the Code, emphasizing its formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties.

Decision: The order of the High Court was set aside, affirming that the findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the first and second suits did not operate as res judicata. The defendants-State retained the right to dispute these findings in the ongoing appeals.