Refunded Cess Amount cannot be recovered by revenue Dept as refund was based on Judgement which was overruled: Supreme Court [Read Judgement]

The Two-member Bench of supreme Court recently has held that the refunded cess amount could not be recovered by revenue department as refund was based on judgement which had been overruled.

The respondent had Jagan Singh filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi for questioning the acquisition of the lands subject matter of the Writ Petition. The acquisition was under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,1894.

A notification under sub­Section (1) of Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 23rd June 1989, which culminated in an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, which was made on 18th June 1992. In the meanwhile, in the year 1990, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed on 20th May 2005. On 19th January 2006, the appellant took over possession of the acquired land.

With effect from 1st January 2014, the 1894 Act was repealed and the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 were brought into force. On 25th May 2015, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition contending that in view of sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed.

The High Court, however, directed the appellant to pay compensation to the first respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act

The appellant contended that the acquired land had already been put to use for public purposes. He urged that now the acquisition could not be declared as lapsed based on a decision which had been expressly overruled. He urged that the reasons for the delay had been properly explained.

On the other hand, the respondent had relied upon the order dated 22nd December 2017 of the appellant which contained a policy dealing with the question of initiating fresh acquisition proceedings where the acquisition had been declared as lapsed under sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.

He submitted that in view of the policy and since the acquired land had been already utilised for public purposes, the direction of the High Court in the impugned judgement to pay compensation to the first respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act, needed to be upheld.

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. and Justice Sanjay Karol observed that the compulsory acquisition had been made for a public purpose and therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities could not allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for allowing people to walk.

The Bench quashed the impugned order directing the appellant to pay costs to the first respondent.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates