Supreme Court Stays MP HC Judgment Which Held Defence Authorities' Reference Against Land Acquisition Compensation As Not Maintainable
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the operation of the impugnedjudgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which held that Defence Authorities had no right to make a reference against the compensation awarded to land owners under Section 18 of the Works for Defence Act, 1903. Background of the Case In July 2021, a Bench of Justices A.M.Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna had...
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the operation of the impugnedjudgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which held that Defence Authorities had no right to make a reference against the compensation awarded to land owners under Section 18 of the Works for Defence Act, 1903.
Background of the Case
In July 2021, a Bench of Justices A.M.Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna had set aside a MP High Court order that directed the disbursal of the amount of Rs.1.96 crores deposited by Defence Ministry with Collector as compensation to land owners. The Bench in its order had said that the High Court had proceeded on the contempt proceedings as if all issues and questions that required determination had been completed. Setting aside the order, the Apex Court had remanded the matter back to the Reference Court (Additional District Judge, Jabalpur) and directed that the matter be decided expeditiously.
Before the Reference Court, land owners raised objection on the ground that as per Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act,1903 only person interested in the award can be a claimant hence the Defence Authorities had no locus and on for this reason reference proceedings were not maintainable. Additional District Judge, Jabalpur disallowed the objection but the MP High Court, in appeal by way of impugned judgement dated 17.11.2021 allowed the petition of the Respondents.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi of MP High Court in its impugned judgement held that
"Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the reference at the instance of the respondents/Authorities which is registered as MJC No.283/2021 before the Tenth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur is not tenable, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, the order dated 26.07.2021 (Annexure-P/18) passed in the said reference proceeding is set aside."
The High Court noted that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the Works of Defence Act 1903 were identical. The High Court held that the entity for whose benefit the land has been acquired has no right to make a reference against the compensation determined by the authorities.
On Friday, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar stayed the operation of the impugned judgement and granted two weeks time to the Respondents to file their affidavit.
Case Title : Station Head Quarter, Sukhlalpur and Another versus Kewal Kumar Jaggi and others |
Counsel: Sr. Adv R. Balasubramium, AOR Santosh Kumar Pandey, for appellants, Sr.Adv Vivek Tankha, Varun Tankha, Sumeer Sondhi for respondents.