MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 353, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 353 
MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 19501-19503 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 16, 2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND 
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 6 and 18 - Signatures of 
appellants-landowners obtained on blank consent form in 1989 -
Notification uls.4 issued after 7 years in 1996 - Consent Awards 
passed in 1997 on the basis of consent forms - On reference u/s. 
B 
c 
18, reference court determined compensation - High Court set aside D 
the said judgment on the ground that no reference u/s. 18 was 
maintainable once acquisition was with consent - On appeal, held: 
Reference could not bt said to be not maintainable' as way back in 
1995 the land owners had submitted the application that they were 
not satisfied with the validity and correctness of consent agreement 
and again immediately they filed applications seeking reference when 
consent award was passed - Thus, it could not be said that land 
owners consented in 199611997 for acquisition at the rate prevailing 
in 1989 - There was no consent award in the eye of law - Reference 
court was right in awarding the compensation on market price which 
prevailed in 1997 - Impugned judgment passed by High Court is 
set aside and that passed by the reference court is restored. 
lslzwarlal Premclumd Shah & Ors. v. State of Gujarat 
[1996] 3 SCR 510 : AIR 1996 SC 1616 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1996) 3 SCR 510 
referred to 
Paras
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 19501-
19503 of2017. 
353 
E 
F 
G 
H
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2014 of the High 
B 
Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in First Appeal No.234 of2012 and First 
Appeal No.2157 of 2010 and Cross Objection No.41 of 2013 in First 
Appeal No.234 of2012 respectively 
WITH 
Civi!Appeal Nos.19504-19506 19522-19524, 19507-19509, 19513-
19515, 19516-19518, 19510-19512, 19519-19521, 19538-19540 and 
19525-19527 of2017. 
Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr. Adv, Anirudh Shanna, A. Parikh, Ad vs 
C 
for the Appellants. 
D 
E 
F 
Preetesh Kapoor, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mrs. Jesal Wahi, Ms.Puja 
Singh, Ms.Shodhika Sharma, Advs for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. An unusual factual matrix exists in the instant cases. Though, 
the consent agreements were entered into in the year 1989 for handing 
over the land in the case of acquisition on a particular value prevailing at 
the relevant time was purportedly mentioned. However, for approximately 
seven years, the State Government did not choose to issue Notification 
under Se.ction 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'). It 
was issued on 7 .6.1996 and Consent Awards were passed on 12.6.1997 
and 5.8.1997 on the basis of consent forms which were obtained in 
1989. Possession had also been taken in 1989. It appears that 80 to 
90% compensation had been disbursed to the incumbent at the time to 
taking possession in 1989. Thereafter it appears that rent
was also paid 
in lieu of occupation. In 1995 reference was sought, application was 
kept pending, then notification under Section 4 was issued in 1946 and 
G 
also declaration under Section 6 of the Act in 1997. Then consent awards 
were passed in 1997 reference was again sought that was ultimately 
made and reference court had determined compensation. The High 
Court had set aside the judgment of the reference court on the ground 
that no reference under section 18 was maintainable once acquisition 
H 
was with consent.
MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. v. STATE OF 
GUJARAT & ORS. 
3. The counsel for the appellant urged that fraud was played on 
the land owners and on blank consent forms signatures were obtained. 
It was not possible to fill dates of events in consent fon11s which took 
place in 1996 and 1997. The consent forms even if executed were 
rendered unenforceable. It would be unfair to permit State functionaries 
to use the consent forms after 8 years as such the judgment passed by 
the reference court be restored. 
4. Learned counsel for the State contended that in view of consent 
awards no reference could have been sought. The possession was taken 
after payment of 80% to 90% of compensation agreed to in 1989, then 
355 
A 
B 
for occupation of land rent was also paid to owners and ultimately after c 
issuance of notification under Section 4 and other formalities the award 
was passed in the year 1997. In the facts of the case no interference 
was called for with impugned judgment passed in the High Court. 
5. A perusal of the consent form reveals that in the consent forms 
most of the columns were kept blank as it was not possible to mention 
D 
subsequent events, and thereafter, date of notification under Section 4 
of the Act and the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act had 
been mentioned afterwards that too immediately before Award was 
passed which could not have been done unilaterally. 
6. The facts indicate that in the year 1995, a premature prayer 
E 
was
made by landowners to make a reference as they felt that the 
consent forms were kept blank and it was assured to them that they 
would be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.50 per Square Meter. 
However, said amount was not mentioned in the Agreement and figure 
ofRs.3.12 per square meter was mentioned in the blank forms. Be that 
F 
as it may, even if 3.12 per square meter was agreed to, would not make 
much difference as to enforceability if such agreements. It appears that 
the reference court in the year 1995 directed the land owners to furnish 
the particulars of their holdings which was the subject matter of the 
consent Agreements. On failure to furnish particulars by the next date 
of hearing, the proceedings were closed sine die. Thus, the conduct of G 
the land owners of filing application in 1995 clearly indicated that they 
were not willing to go by the consent agreement executed in the year 
1989. Thus in all fairness the blank forms should not have been used for 
passing awards on consent basis. 
H
356 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
" . 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) I 2 S.C.R. 
7. It would be highly unfair in the facts of the instant case to ask 
the land owners to abide by the consent terms executed way back in the 
year 1989 and to hand over land to State Government at the rate, which 
prevailed in 1989. The State Government had not taken the steps for 
seven years for acquisition of the land by issuance of the Notification 
under Section 4 of the Act. It was a sine qua non to issue notification 
under Section 4 of the Act to acquire land even with consent. After 
obtaining consent forms and possession, the State Government had waited 
for more than seven years and thereafter only in the year 1996 Notification 
under Section 4 of the Act was issued and consent awards were passed 
in the year 1997. Remaining 10% tO 20% amount was not paid. Ultimately 
as directed by the High Court the reference was made to the District 
Court. The reference court had rightly enhanced the compensation and 
.then the matter travelled to the High Court in appeal filed by the State 
Government and cross objection by land owners for enhancement. At 
that time by way of interim order, direction was given to State to deposit 
the amount. The matter of interim order travelled to this Court and this 
court directed that amount be paid to the land owners as per determination 
made by the reference court. Pursuant to the order passed in the year 
2011 amount had been disbursed to the land owners which
was 
determined by the reference court at the rate of Rs.21.48 per square 
Meter that too after filing of Contempt Petition. 
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reference court 
was right in awarding the compensation on the market price which 
prevailed in the year 1997. In our opinion, though it was open to the 
State Government to enter into an.agreement before issuance of the 
Notification under Section 4 of the Act, as held by this court in lslzwarlal 
Prernchand Shah & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1996 SC 1616, in 
which th.e agreements were entered into three years before. However, 
in the peculiar facts of these cases, it is apparent that the State 
Government could not have waited for seven years after the consent 
forms were obtained in 1989 at particular rate prevailing at relevant time 
to make acquisition in the year 1996 and it would be totally unjust to pass 
consent awards on the basis of almost blank consent forms obtained in 
the year 1989. The relevant date of determination of compensation is 
the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was 
incumbent upon the State Government to obtain fresh consent forms in 
view of repudiation made in 1995 the way of filing application before 
H 
Land Acquisition Collector, whether the land owners were willing, due
MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. v. STATE OF 
357 
GUJARAT & ORS. 
to lapse of time, to hand over the land in 1997 at the rate which prevailed 
A 
in the year 1989 but that was not so done in the instant cases. Thus we 
are of t.he considered opinion that reference was rightly made and 
reference could not be said to be not maintainable as the land owners 
way back in the year 1995 had submitted the application that they were 
not satisfied with the validity and correctness of the Agreement and 
again immediately they had flied applications seeking reference when 
consent award was passed. In the fact of the case it could not be said 
that land owners consented in 1996/ 1997 for acquisition at the rate of 
I 989. lt could not have been termed to be a consent award in the eye of 
law. 
9. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the 
Reference court was justified in making the determination of the 
compensation at the rate of Rs.21.48/- per square meter and that was 
appropriate compensation to be awarded to the land owners. Merely 
payment of the meagre rent to the land owners for the occupation, would 
B 
c 
not come to the rescue of the respondents not to pay the actual value of D 
the land that prevailed in 1996. There was deprivation of possession and 
usufruct for 7/8 years that could not have been compensated in.terms of 
meagre rent, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases. 
10. We set aside the impugned judgment passed by ~he High
Court 
restore the judgnient passed by the reference court. The appeals are 
E 
allowed. The compensation has already been paid. In case any amount 
remains unpaid, the same shall be paid within a periocl qfthree months 
from today. The costs are quantified at Rs.10,000/- in each case that 
shall be paid .by the respondents to each of ihe appellants within the 
aforesaid period. 
Divya Pandey 
Appeal~ allowed.