Compensation under land acquisition law includes value of land, assets: HC

Srinagar, May 8:Underscoring that compensation under land acquisition law includes the value of land, structures and assets attached to it, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has upheld orders on recovery of more than Rs 2.61 crore along with 6% interest related to the acquisition of land for four-laning of the Srinagar-Jammu Highway at Sangam in district Anantnag.

“Once it stands established from the record that an amount has been received in excess of lawful entitlement, the obligation to restore the same arises, forthwith,” a bench of Justice WasimSadiqNargal said, while dismissing a landowner’s plea challenging two orders passed by the court Principal District Judge Anantnag. By virtue of these orders, the landowner was directed to refund the excess compensation he had received allegedly twice under the same compensation stream.

The court observed that the benefit not legally due to a person could not be allowed to be retained.

The contention of the landowner was that the land measuring 6 kanals and 2 marlas along with the structures on it, was acquired for the highway project and that the trial court had awarded compensation that included the payment for land, structures, reinstallation of a petrol outlet and loss of earnings in 2014.

The landholder argued that an amount of Rs 1.02 crore paid towards demolition of structures was separate from the compensation awarded and could not be adjusted. “Once the award had attained finality up to the Supreme Court, the trial court had become functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC),” he said.

The Bench underscored that inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC could be exercised to prevent abuse of process and ensure that excess public money was not retained unlawfully and rejected the landowners’ contention.

 While the court held that Section 151 of CPC preserves the inherent powers of the court to do real and substantial justice, it said: “Inherent powers of the Court are not exhausted upon the conclusion of proceedings rather they continue to subsist to prevent abuse of its process and to ensure that its orders do not occasion injustice.”

Moreover, the court noted that compensation under land acquisition law includes not only the value of land but also structures and assets attached thereto. All payments already received by the claimant were liable to be adjusted against the final compensation, it said.

“It requires to be noted that it is a well-settled principle of law that compensation under the land acquisition is not confined merely to the value of the land acquired, but extends to all interests therein, including structures and assets attached to such land.”

The court pointed out that permitting retention of the excess amount would “amount to clear unjust enrichment at the cost of public funds, which is impermissible in law”. Noting that the doctrine of unjust enrichment mandates that no person can be allowed to retain a benefit which is not legally due to him, the court said once it stands established from the record that an amount has been received in excess of lawful entitlement, the obligation to restore the same arises, forthwith.

The court observed that retaining the excess amount would not only defeat the statutory scheme governing compensation but would also undermine the principles of equity, fairness, and public accountability.

The court upheld the direction by which the landowner is required to deposit Rs 2,61,34,972 along with 6 percent interest within one month, failing which the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

“Before parting, this court would like to observe that filing of review petition by the petitioner after earning dismissal in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Section 17-B of the Land Acquisition Act was a tactics to avoid depositing of the excess public money,” the court said.

“Even after dismissal of the review petition, the petitioner has made another attempt to file the instant petition by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution on false and flimsy grounds in absence of any perversity, jurisdictional infirmity, patent illegality and that too urging similar grounds and facts which have been gone in detail by the learned trial court by cogent reasons,” it added.