Summary
Landowners signed largely blank consent forms and gave possession in1989, but acquisition notification followed only in1996 and awards in1997. They had repudiated the arrangements by seeking a reference in1995. The Court held that the stale forms could not support consent awards barring reference, and restored compensation at Rs21.48 per square metre.
Issues
- Whether the1997 awards based on1989 forms were consent awards precluding a Section18 reference.
- Whether the State could rely on the old rate despite prolonged delay and repudiation.
Held
- Acquisition required a Section4 notification even where consent was contemplated. The forms were largely blank and subsequent statutory dates were inserted unilaterally. The State could not fairly enforce the1989 terms after waiting seven years to notify acquisition, particularly after the landowners had repudiated them. (¶ 5–8)
- An agreement before notification is not inherently impermissible, but these circumstances required fresh consent. The landowners could not be treated as consenting in1996–1997 to the1989 rate; the awards were not consent awards in law and the references were maintainable. (¶ 8)
- Compensation is determined with reference to the Section4 notification date. The Court sustained Rs21.48 per square metre; payment of meagre occupation rent did not justify withholding the actual acquisition-date value. (¶ 8–9)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and reference-court compensation restored. Any unpaid amount to be paid within three months, with Rs10,000 costs in each case payable to each appellant within that period.