Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Kesang Dorjee on 20 May, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7042-7044 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 14787-14789 of 2023)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … APPELLANTS
Versus
KESANG DORJEE & ORS.ETC. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Union of India through Cabinet Secretary, the Ministry of
Defence and other Army Authorities are aggrieved by judgments dated
18.12.2019, 16.11.2022, and 09.03.2023, passed by the Gauhati High
Court, Itanagar Bench. Vide the first judgement, the High Court has
disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the private respondents with
a direction to initiate acquisition of the subject land. Vide the
second judgment, the High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal
against the first judgement on the ground of delay and laches. The
final order dated 09.03.2023 eventually turns down the Review
Petition filed by the appellants.
3. Respondent Nos.1-24 belong to the community which own the land
in villages Bona and Mayum, near the ‘Line of Actual Control’ in
the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The Indian Army took possession of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.06.02
16:34:50 IST
73.96 acres of land in village Bona and 81 acres of land in village
Reason:
Mayum on 01.01.2010 for construction of various facilities near the
2
border. The possession was taken in purported exercise of powers
under Section 3 of The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952 (for short, `the Act’). Section 3 of the
aforesaid Act empowers the Competent Authority to requisition any
property which, in its opinion, is needed for any public purpose of
the Union of India.
4. Section 4 of the Act vests power in the Competent
Authority to take physical possession of the property, which has
been requisitioned under Section 3 of the Act.
5. Thereafter, Section 5 enables the Authorities to use the
properties for such purposes as may be mentioned in the notice of
requisition.
6. In the instant case, we are concerned about the issue
that revolves around Section 8 of the Act. The said provision
outlines the principles and method of determining compensation for
the land which has been requisitioned, or which may have
subsequently been acquired.
7. As can be seen from a reading of the statute, the
possession of the subject land, taken over by our Armed Forces, is
statutorily protected under Section 3 of the Act. The statutory
scheme contemplates that the aggrieved owners can seek compensation
for their requisitioned property, which is to be assessed in
accordance with the criteria laid down in Section 8 of the Act.
8. According to learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, representing the appellants, compensation payable to the
respondents in lieu of possession of their land has been assessed
from time to time by the Collector of the area and such
3
compensation has been regularly paid for the requisitioned
property.
9. It seems that respondent Nos.1-24, who belong to the
community in whom the land statedly vests, were dissatisfied with
the amount of compensation. They have been, accordingly, running
from pillar to post for impressing upon the Union of India “to
acquire” the subject land. In other words, the respondents have
been making efforts that instead of invoking powers under the 1952
Act for requisition of the property, the same may be acquired under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. With the passage of time, and as a
result of repealing of the 1894 Act, the respondents have
substituted their demand, now seeking acquisition of their land
under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”).
10. It is in this backdrop that a learned Single Judge of the
High Court passed an order, dated 18.12.2019, which suggests that
efforts were made for mutual settlement between the parties, and it
was in furtherance of the settlement between the parties that the
learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction
to the DM, Upper Sian District, Arunachal Pradesh, to initiate
acquisition proceedings to acquire the subject land under the 2013
Act. It is pointed out that the purported settlement, referred to
by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment was, in fact,
pertains to negotiations which took place between the parties in
some other case. In other words, the learned Single Judge
misconstrued the instances of the parties and proceeded on the
4
premise as if they have amicably resolved for the acquisition of
land for which the process was to be initiated by the local
Collector. That is why the learned Single Judge has issued
directions for acquisition of the entire land in a time-bound
manner.
11. The intra-court appeal was filed with an inordinate delay
of 824 days, due to which the same was dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches. However, when the matter came up before this
Court on 06.07.2023, all three impugned judgments of the High Court
were stayed. Consequently, none of the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench have been
given effect.
12. Two questions, thus, arise for our consideration: (i)
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction,
could direct the State through a Writ of Mandamus, to compulsorily
acquire the land; and (ii) Whether the land which is already under
requisition, under the 1952 Act, can be directed to be acquired
under the provisions of the 2013 Act?
13. On consideration of the rival submissions, we find that
the possession of the subject land was taken by the Indian Armed
Forces on 01.01.2010. The power to take possession is referable to
Section 3 of the 1952 Act. So long as the land is being used for
the purpose of Union of India, the possession thereof can be
retained up to the time-limit as prescribed under Section 6(1A) of
the Act. There appears to be no provision under the Act which
expressly prohibits fresh requisition of a property on expiry of
the statutory period of 17 years under Section 6(1A) of the Act.
5
14. Be that as it may, the scheme of the statute provides
adequate compensation to the expropriated land-owners, who have
been deprived of the fruits of such land. Section 8 of the Act, as
noticed earlier, lays down the method of determining such
compensation. Under the scheme of the statute, the parties are
expected to fix the compensation through mutual settlement.
However, if that does not fructify, Section 8(1)(b) mandates that
the Central Government shall appoint as arbitrator a person, who is
or has been or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High
Court. The amount of compensation for the requisitioned land is,
thus, required to be determined by the arbitrator.
15. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, on
instructions, categorically states that the subject land is just
six kilometers away from the Line of Control and the Government of
India does not want to acquire it. She, however, submits that the
compensation in terms of Section 8 of the Act has been assessed by
the Collector from time to time and crores of rupees towards that
compensation have been paid.
16. In this regard, we find that the respondent-land-owners
have time and again alleged inadequacy of compensation due to which
they went to the extent to approach the High Court to issue a
direction for acquisition of their land. We are, thus, of the
opinion that in view of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act, it is
imperative for the Central Government to appoint an arbitrator to
determine the compensation amount in lieu of requisition of the
subject land. We, thus, direct the Union of India to follow the
procedure contemplated under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act and appoint
6
an arbitrator within a period of six weeks. The learned arbitrator
shall make an endeavour to determine the compensation amount that
may be payable to the owners of the land, as early as possible, and
pronounce the award within a period of one year after giving
adequate opportunity to the parties to produce the relevant
material, if any, that may help in determining the compensation.
17. In light of the discussion hereinabove, we are satisfied
that the High Court could not have issued a direction for
acquisition of the land.
18. Consequently, the impugned judgments of the Single Judge
as well as the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside.
The appeals stand allowed in the above terms.
19. As a result, the pending interlocutory application stands
disposed of.
..................………......J.
(SURYA KANT)
.................…….........J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 20, 2025.
7
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).14787-14789/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-03-2023
in RP No.12/2022 and order dated 18-12-2019 in WPC No. 181/2019 and
order dated 16-11-2022 in IA(C) No.65/2022 passed by the Gauhati
High Court at Itanagar]
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KESANG DORJEE & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 120346/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 20-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv.
Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv.
Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv.
Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR
Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv.
Mr. Sidhant Awasthy, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Kumar Parcha, Adv.
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, A.A.G.
Ms. Avni Shrivastav, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals stand allowed in terms of the signed order.
8As a result, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)