2018 (9) TMI 2025 - SC - Indian Laws

Receipt of compensation of compensation under the Abolition Act and H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - whether after the abolition of Jagirs by virtue of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, 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? Whether land has vested in State under the Abolition Act, and effect of acceptance of compensation under the said Act? - HELD THAT - The intent of the Abolition Act is that the agrarian reforms by Abolition of Big Landed Estates have to be given the full effect. Once land has vested in the State, it was not open to Rajinder Singh on the basis of continuation of wrong entries in revenue records, to claim any right, title or interest much less compensation under the Ceiling Act as well as under the provisions of the LA Act. Thus, the entire land on the condition being satisfied with the landed holdings of a landowner the annual land revenue of which is ₹ 125 or more, land vested in the State and not excess part over and above the land to which the said land revenue is ascribed, with the saving of personally cultivated land. Effect of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act? - HELD THAT - The fact is conclusively established that land in question had been declared as 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 vide order dated 30.6.1980, there was no question of payment of compensation to Rajinder Singh or to his legal representatives in proceedings initiated later on in the year 1987 under the L.A. Act. 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. It was not fact situation that question of the title has been disputed and decided in reference proceedings but whether Rajinder Singh or his L.Rs. were entitled to claim compensation in view of the proceedings and that orders passed under the Abolition Act and Ceiling Act were definitely required to be gone into - once land has been declared surplus and compensation has been received. It was not open to receive it again in the land acquisition case. Effect of withdrawal of Civil Suit No. 15/1970 in appeal - HELD THAT - The Respondents Rajinder Singh 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 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. 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 ? - HELD THAT - The question in the instant case is as to whether an incumbent can be permitted to play blatant fraud time and again and court has to be silent spectator under the guise of label of the various legal proceedings at different stages by taking different untenable stands whether compensation can be claimed several times as done in the instant case and its effect. Before the land acquisition had been commenced in 1987, the land more than 1000 bighas had been declared a surplus in ceiling case and compensation collected, which indeed disputed land at Jhakari, it would be a perpetuating fraud in case such a person is permitted to claim compensation for same very land. Fraud vitiates the solemn proceedings; such plea can be set up even in collateral proceedings. The label on the petition is not much material and this Court has already permitted the plea of fraud to be raised. Moreover, Appeal arising out of 72 awards is still pending in the High Court in which Reference Court has declined compensation on the aforesaid ground. In the peculiar facts projected in the case the principle fraud vitiates is clearly applicable it cannot be ignored and overlooked under the guise of the scope of proceedings Under Section 18/30 of the LA Act. Whether the Respondents who are claiming on the basis of patta/transfer made by Rajinder Singh, are bona fide transferees and entitled to compensation? - HELD THAT - In case regular first appeal is pending in the High Court as against the order of reference court against the Respondents who claim to be bona fide transferees, obviously, the question of bona fide transferee has to be decided finally in the pending regular first appeal before the High Court. In case appeal has not been filed or has been decided, the compensation to follow the decision. We do not propose to give final verdict on issue at this stage. We leave the question open to the High Court to adjudicate. However, in case compensation has been paid to transferees, the compensation paid shall not be recovered till such time pending appeal is decided. In case no matter against transferees is pending and appeal has been decided in favour of land owners, obviously they have to be paid and this Order will not come in the way. The compensation that has been withdrawn by Late Rajinder Singh or his L.Rs. in the case of land acquisition, in original proceedings or Under Section 28-A shall be refunded along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum within 3 months from today to the Appellants/State - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vesting of land under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.
2. Effect of proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
3. Effect of withdrawal of Civil Suit No. 15/1970 in appeal.
4. Determination of right, title, or interest in land acquisition compensation under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. Entitlement of bona fide transferees to compensation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vesting of Land under the Abolition Act:
The Supreme Court examined whether the land held by the late Jagirdar vested in the State under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. The Court noted that the land exceeding an annual land revenue of ?125 per year vested automatically in the State, except for land under personal cultivation. The Court affirmed that the land not under personal cultivation vested in the State and the compensation determined by the Compensation Officer was paid to the Jagirdar. The Court held that the land described as "Banjar Kadim" or wasteland also vested in the State, rejecting the claim that it was not covered under the definition of "land" in the Abolition Act.

2. Effect of Proceedings under the Ceiling Act:
The Court discussed the proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, where the land was declared surplus and compensation was paid. The Court noted that the Jagirdar had received compensation for the land declared surplus under the Ceiling Act, and this fact was not disputed. The Court held that once the land was declared surplus and compensation received, it was not open to claim compensation again under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court emphasized that the land had vested in the State under the Abolition Act, and the subsequent declaration of surplus under the Ceiling Act further reinforced the State's ownership.

3. Effect of Withdrawal of Civil Suit No. 15/1970 in Appeal:
The Court examined the withdrawal of Civil Suit No. 15/1970 by the Jagirdar, where he had initially challenged the vesting of land. The Court noted that the suit was withdrawn on the grounds that the land had been declared surplus under the Ceiling Act and compensation received. The Court held that this withdrawal created an estoppel against the Jagirdar from claiming compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court emphasized that the withdrawal of the suit on these grounds indicated acceptance of the surplus declaration and compensation received, thus barring any further claims.

4. Determination of Right, Title, or Interest in Land Acquisition Compensation:
The Court addressed whether the right, title, or interest in the land could be determined in proceedings under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly in cases involving fraud. The Court held that fraud vitiates all proceedings and that the Jagirdar had committed fraud by claiming compensation multiple times for the same land. The Court emphasized that the principle of "fraud vitiates" applies, and the Jagirdar's claims were barred due to the fraudulent conduct. The Court noted that the Land Acquisition Officer had rightly directed that compensation should not be paid due to the pending ceiling proceedings.

5. Entitlement of Bona Fide Transferees to Compensation:
The Court discussed the entitlement of bona fide transferees to compensation. The High Court had held that the respondents were bona fide transferees from the Jagirdar. However, the Supreme Court noted that the issue of bona fide transferees was still pending in regular first appeals before the High Court. The Court left the question open for the High Court to adjudicate, stating that compensation paid to transferees should not be recovered until the pending appeals are decided. If the appeals are decided in favor of the landowners, compensation should be paid accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing that the compensation withdrawn by the Jagirdar or his legal representatives under the Land Acquisition Act be refunded with interest. The Court emphasized the principle that fraud vitiates all proceedings and barred the Jagirdar's claims due to fraudulent conduct. The issue of bona fide transferees was left open for adjudication by the High Court in pending appeals.