Summary
The Supreme Court held that the land-acquisition award had been approved in March 2010 despite the approval letter expressly referring only to the estimate. The preceding request, payment and acceptance of compensation, enhancement application and transfer of possession demonstrated approval of the award as well. The State could not reacquire land already vested in it. Later correspondence and notifications did not establish a fresh entitlement under the 2013 compensation regime for this acquired land.
Issues
- Whether the March 2010 communication approved the award as well as the estimate.
- Whether later acquisition steps could reopen a completed acquisition and support the landowner’s claim under the 2013 regime.
Held
- The approval communication had to be read with the request enclosing the prescribed award and estimate, and with the parties’ subsequent conduct. The funding direction and completed compensation and possession steps demonstrated approval of the award in 2010. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Once the award was approved, compensation paid and possession transferred, the completed acquisition of this land could not be reopened through fresh notifications. Government cannot acquire land already vested in it. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The Court did not decide the factual correctness of the State’s explanation that the later award concerned owners omitted earlier. It held that those later proceedings could not reacquire this respondent’s already acquired land. (¶ 18)
- The later letters did not nullify the original award or entitle this landowner to the fresh-acquisition treatment sought. The High Court’s contrary orders were set aside. (¶¶ 12, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeals allowed; the impugned High Court orders set aside, with parties bearing their own costs.