Supreme Court Upholds Heir’s Right to Compensation in Land Acquisition Case: Manjari Tanty vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 27 September 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 6111 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C)No.22220 of 2019)
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka.

When a person’s land is acquired by the government, who gets the compensation? The Supreme Court recently dealt with a case where the rightful heir to compensation was disputed due to conflicting dates of death of a family member. The core issue revolved around determining the correct date of death of the appellant’s father, Kuladhara, which would decide her entitlement to a share of the compensation awarded for the acquired land. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the acquisition of land belonging to one Late Jadumani in Village Lankahuda, District Sundargarh, Odisha. The land, measuring Ac.7.690 decimals, was acquired following a notification dated 28.04.2010 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After the acquisition, multiple parties, including the appellant, Manjari Tanty, and respondent no. 3, filed claims for compensation as legal heirs of Late Jadumani. Manjari Tanty claimed 50% of the compensation, asserting her right as an heir through her father, Kuladhara. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) rejected Manjari Tanty’s claim, accepting respondent no. 3’s claim based on a Will and the premise that Kuladhara had predeceased Jadumani. The core dispute was the date of death of Kuladhara, which would determine Manjari Tanty’s inheritance rights.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) accepted the claim of respondent no. 3, based on a Will, and rejected the appellant’s claim, stating that her father, Kuladhara, had died before Jadumani. The appellant appealed to the Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh, who reversed the LAO’s decision, finding that Kuladhara died on 14.07.1993 and granting the appellant 50% of the compensation. However, on further appeal by respondent no. 3, the Orissa High Court set aside the Civil Judge’s order, restoring the LAO’s decision. The High Court held that Kuladhara died on 14.07.1973. The Supreme Court, after initially ordering the production of death records, directed the Principal District Judge, Sundargarh, to conduct an inquiry into the date of Kuladhara’s death. The District Judge’s report concluded that Kuladhara died on 14.07.1993, which was accepted by the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Specifically, Section 4 of the Act deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for the acquisition of land. Further, Section 30 of the Act deals with the disputes regarding the apportionment of compensation. The dispute in this case arises from the interpretation of who is considered a legal heir under the personal laws of the parties involved, which then determines their right to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The relevant part of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 states:

“30. Dispute as to apportionment.—When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant contended that her father, Kuladhara, died on 14.07.1993, not 14.07.1973 as claimed by the respondents.
• She argued that as Kuladhara was alive at the time of Jadumani’s death, she is a legal heir and entitled to 50% of the compensation.
• The appellant relied on the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, which confirmed the date of death as 14.07.1993.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondents argued that Kuladhara died on 14.07.1973, before the death of Jadumani, and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation.
• They stated that the appellant had initially sought an amendment to correct the date of death from 1973 to 1993, which was rejected, and the revision petition was dismissed as infructuous.
• They contended that the District Judge’s report was not based on a proper appreciation of evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. What is the correct date of death of Kuladhara Tanty?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, which was based on the evidence presented by both parties and oral evidence. The court considered the factual evidence and did not discuss any specific case laws or legal provisions other than Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The report of the District & Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, was accepted as conclusive evidence for the date of death of Kuladhara Tanty.
• Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was considered to highlight the dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual finding of the District & Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, regarding the date of death of Kuladhara Tanty. The court emphasized the importance of establishing the correct date of death to determine the legal heirship and entitlement to compensation. The court’s reasoning was heavily reliant on the factual inquiry and the evidence presented, rather than on complex legal interpretations or precedents. The court’s acceptance of the District Judge’s report was crucial, as it provided a clear and conclusive finding on the disputed date. The court also considered that the respondent’s claim of Kuladhara’s death in 1973 was not supported by the inquiry and evidence.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the conflicting dates of death for Kuladhara Tanty and, after considering the report of the District Judge, the court accepted that Kuladhara died on 14.07.1993. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and confirmed the order of the Civil Judge, thereby entitling the appellant to 50% of the compensation. The court’s decision was based on the factual finding of the District & Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, and the evidence presented by both parties. The court stated:

“After we have heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the report of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Sundargarh which has been furnished by him on 28.09.2020 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 31.01.2020 and arrived at conclusion that death of Kuladhara had taken place on 14.07.1993 in Village Raibaga. We accept the report.”

“In our considered view, the order of the High Court impugned dated 28.06.2019 in the light of what has been afore-stated, deserves to be set aside.”

“Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is, accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court impugned dated 28.06.2019 is hereby, quashed and set aside. We confirm the order dated 16.02.2016 of Ld.Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh, Odisha and the appellant is entitled to claim 50% of her share of compensation in terms of order dated 16.02.2016.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court prioritized factual accuracy in determining legal heirship in land acquisition cases.
• The court’s acceptance of the District Judge’s report highlights the importance of local inquiries in resolving factual disputes.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that legal heirs are entitled to their rightful share of compensation.
• This case underscores the need for accurate record-keeping, especially in cases involving inheritance and land rights.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the order of the High Court be set aside and the order of the Civil Judge be restored, thereby entitling the appellant to 50% of the compensation.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion on any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in land acquisition cases, the determination of legal heirship and entitlement to compensation must be based on accurate factual findings, particularly concerning dates of death. The court emphasized that local inquiries and evidence play a crucial role in resolving factual disputes. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the court reiterated the importance of factual accuracy in determining legal heirship.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Orissa High Court’s order and restoring the Civil Judge’s order. The court held that the appellant, Manjari Tanty, is entitled to 50% of the compensation for the acquired land, based on the finding that her father, Kuladhara, died on 14.07.1993. The judgment underscores the importance of factual accuracy and local inquiries in determining legal heirship and entitlement to compensation in land acquisition cases.