Case: ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. GILLAPUKRI TEA COMPANY LIMITED  &amp; ORS. ETC

action required of the State Government was to approve the award which was already in the statutorily prescribed form. This is precisely what was done vide the letter dated 05.03.2010 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department. 14. This letter dated 05.03.2010 was issued in response to the letter dated 30.01.2010, whereunder approval of the award and the land acquisition estimate was sought. While this letter only expressly mentions the land acquisition estimate and not the award, a combined reading of this letter with the preceding letter dated 30.01.2010 and the subsequent conduct of the parties, including the first respondent, make it evident that the award stood approved by this letter of 05.03.2010. It is noteworthy that copies of both the letters of 30.01.2010 and 05.03.2010 were also addressed to the Industries & Commerce Department of the Government of Assam. Vide the initial letter of 30.01.2010, the said Department was requested to arrange balance funds for making payment to the land owners as per the award. In furtherance of this, vide the letter of 05.03.2010, the said Department was directed to place the balance estimated fund at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner. We find strength in the appellants submission that if the award which had been sent for approval alongwith the estimate had not been approved by the said letter dated 05.03.2010, this direction for making funds for payment to landowners available to the Deputy Commissioner would not have been called for. This view is fortified by the subsequent conduct of the parties, as particularly evinced by the below mentioned actions. 15. It is undisputed that the award amount was indeed made available to the Deputy Commissioner and the awarded sum was duly paid to and received by the first respondent. Not only did the first respondent receive compensation pursuant to the award, it in fact sought enhancement of the same vide its reassessment petition dated 05.05.2010 u/s 18 of the L.A. Act addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. It is also not contested that vide possession certificate dated 21.05.2010, the first respondent handed over possession to the Deputy Commissioner and that on 11.06.2010 possession of the land was ultimately handed over to the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner. What clearly emerges from the above is that after the letter dated 05.03.2010, it was the common belief of the State Government, the appellant as well as the first respondent that the award had been approved and that now actions subsequent thereto viz. payment and receipt of compensation, handover of possession, seeking reassessment of the compensation were needed to be undertaken. 16. It is clear from the materials on record that the plastic project for which the subject Land Acquisition was initiated has already been developed on the acquired land including boundary wall, entrance gate, laying of roads, drains and electrical distribution networks, electrical substation, industrial sheds and warehouses. 17. In the above scenario, the arguments of the first respondent are untenable. Once the award has been approved, compensation has been paid thereunder and possession of the land has been handed over to the Government, acquisition proceedings could not have been reopened, including by way of re-notification of the already acquired land under Section 4 of the L.A. Act by the Government. Contrary to the first respondents contention, the question of lapsing under Section 24 of the L.A. Act could not have arisen in this case once the award was approved on 05.03.2010. 18. So far as the second set of acquisition proceedings are concerned, without addressing the factual veracity of the State Governments contention that the second award was meant to be only in respect of landowners not covered by the original award, we are of the opinion that it would not have been possible for the State Government to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of already acquired land such as that of the first respondent herein. This position has been affirmed by this Court in D. Hanumanth SA & Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 656 in the following terms: 17. Even otherwise, if land already stands acquired by the Government and if the same stands vested in the Government there is no question of acquisition of such a land by issuing a second notification for the Government cannot acquire its own land. The same is by now settled by various decision of this Court in a catena of cases. 18. In State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249. this Court has held that the Land Acquisition Act does not contemplate or provide for the acquisition of any interest belonging to the Government in the land on acquisition This position was reiterated in a subsequent decision of this Court in Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 362 . in paras 15 and 16 of the said judgment, this Court has held that the High Court clearly erred in setting aside the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer declining a reference since it is settled law that in land acquisition proceedings the Government cannot and does not acquire its own interest. While laying down the aforesaid law, this Court has referred to its earlier decision in Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri AIR 1955 SC 298 : (1955) 1 SCR 1311. The recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 has also affirmed that once possession is taken by the State, the land vests absolutely with the State and the title of the landowner ceases. We find no reason to deviate from this settled position of law and thus are unable to agree with the High Courts reliance on the letters dated 21.07.2012 and 06.01.2014 to nullify the original award and allow fresh acquisition proceedings in respect of the first respondents land which had already been acquired and has been under the possession of the appellant since 11.06.2010.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Needless to say, if the award was not approved on 05.03.2010, but rather on 06.01.2014 as contended by the first respondent, then the 2013 Act will be applicable and the first respondent will be eligible to receive compensation in accordance therewith.13. To determine whether the award had indeed been approved on 05.03.2010, we first have to examine the letter dated 30.01.2010 through which the State Governments approval of the award was sought by the Deputy Commissioner. It is uncontested that vide this letter both the award and the land acquisition estimate were sent to the State Government for its approval. It is pertinent to note that the award was in the format of Form No. 15 which is the statutorily prescribed form for a land acquisition award under the Assam Land Acquisition Manual. This is also true of the land acquisition estimate which was as per the prescribed format of Form No. 5. As such, the only further action required of the State Government was to approve the award which was already in the statutorily prescribed form. This is precisely what was done vide the letter dated 05.03.2010 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department.14. This letter dated 05.03.2010 was issued in response to the letter dated 30.01.2010, whereunder approval of the award and the land acquisition estimate was sought. While this letter only expressly mentions the land acquisition estimate and not the award, a combined reading of this letter with the preceding letter dated 30.01.2010 and the subsequent conduct of the parties, including the first respondent, make it evident that the award stood approved by this letter of 05.03.2010. It is noteworthy that copies of both the letters of 30.01.2010 and 05.03.2010 were also addressed to the Industries & Commerce Department of the Government of Assam. Vide the initial letter of 30.01.2010, the said Department was requested to arrange balance funds for making payment to the land owners as per the award. In furtherance of this, vide the letter of 05.03.2010, the said Department was directed to place the balance estimated fund at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner. We find strength in the appellants submission that if the award which had been sent for approval alongwith the estimate had not been approved by the said letter dated 05.03.2010, this direction for making funds for payment to landowners available to the Deputy Commissioner would not have been called for. This view is fortified by the subsequent conduct of the parties, as particularly evinced by the below mentioned actions.15. It is undisputed that the award amount was indeed made available to the Deputy Commissioner and the awarded sum was duly paid to and received by the first respondent. Not only did the first respondent receive compensation pursuant to the award, it in fact sought enhancement of the same vide its reassessment petition dated 05.05.2010 u/s 18 of the L.A. Act addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. It is also not contested that vide possession certificate dated 21.05.2010, the first respondent handed over possession to the Deputy Commissioner and that on 11.06.2010 possession of the land was ultimately handed over to the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner. What clearly emerges from the above is that after the letter dated 05.03.2010, it was the common belief of the State Government, the appellant as well as the first respondent that the award had been approved and that now actions subsequent thereto viz. payment and receipt of compensation, handover of possession, seeking reassessment of the compensation were needed to be undertaken.16. It is clear from the materials on record that the plastic project for which the subject Land Acquisition was initiated has already been developed on the acquired land including boundary wall, entrance gate, laying of roads, drains and electrical distribution networks, electrical substation, industrial sheds and warehouses.17. In the above scenario, the arguments of the first respondent are untenable. Once the award has been approved, compensation has been paid thereunder and possession of the land has been handed over to the Government, acquisition proceedings could not have been reopened, including by way of re-notification of the already acquired land under Section 4 of the L.A. Act by the Government. Contrary to the first respondents contention, the question of lapsing under Section 24 of the L.A. Act could not have arisen in this case once the award was approved on 05.03.2010.18. So far as the second set of acquisition proceedings are concerned, without addressing the factual veracity of the State Governments contention that the second award was meant to be only in respect of landowners not covered by the original award, we are of the opinion that it would not have been possible for the State Government to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of already acquired land such as that of the first respondent herein. This position has been affirmed by this Court in D. Hanumanth SA & Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 656    in the following terms:17. Even otherwise, if land already stands acquired by the Government and if the same stands vested in the Government there is no question of acquisition of such a land by issuing a second notification for the Government cannot acquire its own land. The same is by now settled by various decision of this Court in a catena of cases.18. In State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249. this Court has held that the Land Acquisition Act does not contemplate or provide for the acquisition of any interest belonging to the Government in the land on acquisition This position was reiterated in a subsequent decision of this Court in Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 362 .  in paras 15 and 16 of the said judgment, this Court has held that the High Court clearly erred in setting aside the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer declining a reference since it is settled law that in land acquisition proceedings the Government cannot and does not acquire its own interest. While laying down the aforesaid law, this Court has referred to its earlier decision in Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri AIR 1955 SC 298   : (1955) 1 SCR 1311.  The recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129    has also affirmed that once possession is taken by the State, the land vests absolutely with the State and the title of the landowner ceases. We find no reason to deviate from this settled position of law and thus are unable to agree with the High Courts reliance on the letters dated 21.07.2012 and 06.01.2014 to nullify the original award and allow fresh acquisition proceedings in respect of the first respondents land which had already been acquired and has been under the possession of the appellant since 11.06.2010.