Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein (original petitioners) and directed the Appellant herein to pay the requisite amount towards compensation as determined in the Supplementary Award dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) (Respondent No. 10) in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from JAL (Respondent No. 11) if permissible under the legal relationship between the two companies – Correctness:

Held: An analysis of the Scheme agreed between the Appellant and JAL is the key to determine who should pay the amount determined under the Supplementary Award dated 02.05.2022 – Clause 1.1 (o) defines the “Effective Date” as the date on which the Scheme becomes effective in accordance with its terms, which shall be the Closing Date [defined in Clause 1.1(k) and Clause 10.1] – The said date was decided to be 29.06.2017 among the parties – The parties by way of Clause 1.1(w)(ix) agreed that all litigations pertaining to the business and assets being transferred to the Appellant that arose before or on the Closing Date would not be transferred to the Appellant and will remain with JAL – Clause 7.1 of the Scheme states without any ambiguity that any legal or other proceeding by or against JAL or its unit operating the cement project relating to the JAL Business as defined in Clause 1.1(w), initiated on or arising and pending before the Effective Date shall remain with JAL – The facts indicate that the land acquisition proceedings had commenced before the Effective Date of the Scheme (i.e. 29.06.2017) and the compensation remained undetermined as on the Effective Date – These facts attract the application of Clause 7.1 of the Scheme as the acquisition proceedings and the liability to pay compensation associated with it squarely falls within the meaning of ‘other proceedings’ as intended by the parties under the said Clause – JAL has also not disputed that it had made payment of the amount determined under the Award of 2018 i.e., Rs. 10,77,53,842/- after the Effective Date of the Scheme – The said amount has already been disbursed to the landowners – After the LAC determined the amount under the Award dated 08.06.2018, JAL paid the same without any protest or reference to the Scheme  – Therefore, at the stage of the Supplementary Award pertaining to the same land and same original landowners, JAL cannot be allowed to take the plea that the payments with respect to the subject land were required to be made by the Appellant. [Paras 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29]

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.101 – It is the case of JAL that the substantial delay in acquisition of the subject land has frustrated its purpose, and it could not make any use of the land – It was submitted that if the Appellant does not require the said land, then it should be returned to the original landowners and the amount of Rs. 10,77,53,842/- paid under the Award of 2018 should be refunded to JAL:

Held: The necessary conditions for the application of Section 101 are: (1) the land should be unutilized; and (2) the period it remains not in use should be at least five years from the date of taking of possession – There is no merit in the contention of JAL that the land be returned to the original landowners – While period of five years has elapsed from the date of taking of possession by JAL, the first condition that the land should remain unutilized is not fulfilled – The subject land was acquired for the purpose of providing a safety zone to the mining area of the cement plant – No other use except that the subject land may pose hazard to the residents was envisaged during the acquisition proceedings – JAL cannot pray for return of the land as that would result in endangering the lives and property of the original landowners – It is also found that the subject land has been in use all throughout the operation of the cement project by serving as a safety zone and the condition of being unutilized is not satisfied – It is not in dispute that the Supplementary Award had to be passed as the compensation for standing crops, structures and other damages for the subject land which could not be fixed and evaluated under the Award No. 1 dated 08.06.2018 – The passing of Supplementary Award was not a fresh exercise but rather a continuation/extension of the Award of 2018 – Therefore, when JAL has already paid the compensation amount as determined under the previous Award without any demur, it cannot be allowed to question its liability under the Supplementary Award and make a plea for return of the land at this stage on the ground that the purpose of the land is frustrated due to delay in acquisition proceedings. [Paras 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.101 – Scope of:

Held: The instant section was introduced in the 2013 Act for the first time as a beneficial provision for the landowners whose lands were usurped but remained unutilized or were not used in accordance with the purpose stated in the notifications under Section 4 – However, the application of the Section is warranted only in the circumstances where the return of the land would benefit the landowners – The party which has failed to utilize the land cannot plead for the return of the land and consequent refund of the compensation paid, as that would tantamount to taking advantage of its own wrong or default. [Para 40]

Constitution of India – Art.300-A – Role of the State under Article 300-A of the Constitution – Responsibility of State to ensure full payment of compensation determined:

Held: It is settled that once the compensation has been determined, the same is payable immediately without any requirement of a representation or request by the landowners and a duty is cast on the State to pay such compensation to the land losers, otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution – In the instant case, the Government of Himachal Pradesh as a welfare State ought to have proactively intervened in the matter with a view to ensure that the requisite amount towards compensation is paid at the earliest – The State cannot abdicate its constitutional and statutory responsibility of payment of compensation by arguing that its role was limited to initiating acquisition proceedings under the MOU signed between the Appellant, JAL and itself – This Court finds that the delay in the payment of compensation to the landowners after taking away ownership of the subject land from them is in contravention to the spirit of the constitutional scheme of Article 300A and the idea of a welfare State – The State Government, in peculiar circumstances, was expected to make the requisite payment towards compensation to the landowners from its own treasury and should have thereafter proceeded to recover the same from JAL – Instead of making the poor landowners to run after the powerful corporate houses, it should have compelled JAL to make the necessary payment – Also, the State of Himachal Pradesh, being a welfare state, did not ensure payment of compensation to the Respondent Nos. 1-6 before taking possession of their land – A bare reading of Section 38 of the 2013 Act indicates that the payment of full and final compensation to the land owners is a precursor to taking possession of the land sought to be acquired from such persons – In fact, the landowners had to approach the High Court to seek directions to the LAC for passing of the supplementary award which was finally passed on 02.05.2022 that is, after a period of almost four years from the date of passing of the Award of 2018 – Further, Section 41 of 1894 Act necessitates an agreement between the appropriate government and the company for whose purpose the land is being acquired – One of the purposes of such an agreement is to ensure that payment towards the cost of acquisition is made by the company to the appropriate government and it is only upon such payment that the land is transferred to the company – Thus, it can be said that JAL was mandated to make the requisite payment to the State of Himachal Pradesh prior to the subject land being transferred to it – However, even before the amount of compensation could be determined by way of a supplementary award as stipulated in the Award dated 08.06.2018, the subject land stood transferred to JAL – This is in contravention of Section 38 of the 2013 Act and Section 41 of the 1894 Act respectively – Thus, the Respondent Nos. 7 (State of Himachal Pradesh) and 10 (LAC) are directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 3,05,31,095/- – The total amount paid by the State shall be recovered from the Respondent No. 11 (JAL). [Paras 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 55, 58]