2020 (10) TMI 1176 - HC - Indian Laws

Land acquisition - Whether the finding of the learned single Judge that the agreement executed by and between the writ petitioners and the District Collector could be treated as an award in terms of Act, 2013? - HELD THAT - The determination was done in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2013 and it also takes in acquisition of land on the basis of agreement. Thus, the condition contained under the agreements granting liberty to the writ petitioners to make claims on account of the act 2013 cannot be said to be a totally strange or alien condition. To put it otherwise, the said condition makes absolute sense, since it really intended to protect the interest of the land owners which has a clear correlation with the objective of Act, 2013 for payment of adequate and fair compensation, apart from other provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement, for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that, affected persons become partners in the developmental activities. Having acted upon the unilateral agreement executed by the writ petitioners in favour of the District Collector and paid the compensation in terms of that agreement and secured possession of the land accordingly, the District Collector cannot turn around and attack the agreement stating that the District Collector is not bound by unilateral agreement executed by the writ petitioners. Admittedly, it is an essential condition of the agreement that while re-determining the value of the land surrendered by the writ petitioners under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioners are entitled to get further compensation or package offered by the Government over and above the compensation already fixed and further that they would be eligible to receive the same. If there was no intention to act upon that part of the agreement, the District Collector should not have accepted the agreement in toto. Having not done so, the District Collector is not at liberty to resile from the said essential term of the agreements. Above all, the requisitioning authority is the Corporation of Kochi and at the end of the day further compensation if any to be paid, the financial sufferer is the said Corporation and accordingly, looking from that angle, the appellants cannot be strictly termed as aggrieved persons. Yet another contention advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Tek Chand, is that in terms of Annexure A3 judgment produced along with the writ appeal, the writ petitioners are not at liberty to make any claims in terms of the determination of compensation as per Act, 2013, since no income tax was deducted consequent to the purchase of the land by the Government in terms of the agreement offered by the writ petitioners. However, the said issue is guided by Section 96 of the Act, 2013 dealing with exemption from income tax, stamp duty and fees, which stipulates that no income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under Section 46 and no person claiming under any such award or agreement shall be liable to pay any fee for a copy of the same. Therefore, it is unequivocal that by virtue of the specific stipulation contained under section 96 of Act 2013, no income tax can be levied on any award or agreement. Which means, the appellants are not entitled to get any advantage on the basis of Annexure A3 judgment. Said so, we do not find any force in the said contention also. The appellant have not made out any case, justifying interference in the judgment of the learned single Judge exercising the power under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, there being no error in exercising the discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or other legal infirmities - Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the agreements executed between the writ petitioners and the District Collector can be treated as awards under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. Entitlement of the writ petitioners to enhanced compensation under the Act, 2013.
3. Applicability of Section 64 of the Act, 2013 for reference to authority.
4. Impact of the unilateral nature of agreements on the binding force.
5. Implications of Annexure A3 judgment on the entitlement for compensation under the Act, 2013.
6. Relevance of Section 96 of the Act, 2013 regarding exemption from income tax.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Treatment of Agreements as Awards:
The primary issue was whether the agreements between the writ petitioners and the District Collector could be considered as awards under the Act, 2013. The court observed that the agreements (Exts.P10 and P11) were executed unilaterally by the petitioners, agreeing to surrender the land for a specified consideration. A crucial condition in these agreements was that any further compensation offered by the government under the Act, 2013 would be payable to the petitioners. The court upheld the single judge's direction to treat these agreements as awards, emphasizing that the agreements were acted upon by both parties, and the District Collector could not later contest their binding nature.

2. Entitlement to Enhanced Compensation:
The appellants argued that the compensation was fixed as per a basic evaluation report under the Act, 2003, and thus, no enhanced compensation was due. However, the court noted that the agreements included a provision for re-determination of compensation under the Act, 2013. The court highlighted that the Act, 2013 aimed to ensure fair compensation and rehabilitation, and the agreements' condition for additional compensation aligned with this objective. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled to seek enhanced compensation.

3. Applicability of Section 64 of the Act, 2013:
Section 64 allows any person who has not accepted the award to request a reference to the authority for determination of compensation. The court found that the petitioners had submitted applications (Exts.P12 and P13) seeking such a reference. It was noted that the District Collector did not have the power to re-determine compensation; only the authority constituted under the Act could do so. Hence, the court affirmed the single judge's direction to consider the applications under Section 64.

4. Unilateral Nature of Agreements:
The appellants contended that the agreements were unilateral and thus not binding. The court rejected this argument, stating that the agreements were acted upon, and compensation was paid based on them. The District Collector could not later claim that the agreements were not binding, especially when they included a condition for re-determination of compensation under the Act, 2013.

5. Impact of Annexure A3 Judgment:
The appellants relied on Annexure A3, which dealt with tax deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing it indicated no acquisition under the Act, 2013. The court dismissed this argument, noting that the specific stipulation under Section 96 of the Act, 2013 exempted such awards or agreements from income tax. Thus, Annexure A3 did not affect the petitioners' entitlement to compensation under the Act, 2013.

6. Relevance of Section 96 of the Act, 2013:
Section 96 exempts awards or agreements under the Act from income tax and stamp duty. The court clarified that this provision unequivocally applied, negating the appellants' reliance on Annexure A3. Therefore, the exemption from income tax did not undermine the petitioners' claims for enhanced compensation.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellants had not demonstrated any error in the single judge's judgment. The agreements were valid and binding, and the petitioners were entitled to seek enhanced compensation under the Act, 2013. The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the single judge's directions for considering the reference applications in terms of the Act, 2013.

← Previous Next →