2025 (3) TMI 1056 - SC - Indian Laws

Statutory Board cannot return acquired land through private agreements without proper government conveyance documents Domain

The SC held that a statutory Board cannot enter into private agreements to return acquired land without proper conveyance documents from the Government. ... Acquisition of land for Public Purpose - Valid agreement or not - Whether the Board, for whose benefit the land was acquired, could have achieved the equivalent of such withdrawal by entering into an agreement with Bhagwan Devi for returning part of the acquired land? - whether the Board could exercise such power when there was no document of conveyance in its favour in respect of this land? - HELD THAT:- he statutory scheme of the laws applicable to the Board at different points of time, set out speaks to the contrary as it manifests that there must be a document of conveyance for the Board to acquire and hold such land. Admittedly, no such document was ever issued by the Government actually transferring the subject land to the Board, whereby it could claim absolute rights over it. When the State uses its sovereign power of eminent domain and acquires land for a public purpose, as in the case on hand, i.e., for establishment of a grain market under the control of a statutory Board, such an exercise cannot be set at naught by the beneficiary of such acquisition, viz., the statutory Board, by entering into a private agreement shortly after the acquisition so as to reverse the usage of the power of eminent domain by the State. Validating this dubious enterprise by a statutory beneficiary of a compulsory acquisition would be nothing short of permitting a fraud on the exercise of such sovereign power by the State. Viewed thus, the agreement dated 30.09.1988 was clearly in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law and the Arbitral Award dated 10.07.2007, upholding the said agreement, was equally so. Further, the fact that the preparation of the agreement dated 30.09.1988, by purchase of stamp papers for the same and the drafting thereof, took place even before the matter was considered by the Board in the meeting held on 29.09.1988 clearly revealed that there was something suspect about the transaction. Given the further fact that the only objective of the said agreement was to thwart the compulsory acquisition of the subject land by returning a portion thereof to Bhagwan Devi, the agreement was patently opposed to all tenets of law. Conclusion - There are no hesitation in holding that the Courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, erred grievously in not setting aside the Arbitral Award dated 10.07.2007 that had upheld the agreement dated 30.09.1988. Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:1. Whether the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (the Board) had the authority to enter into an agreement with Bhagwan Devi to return a portion of land acquired for public purposes.2. Whether the agreement dated 30.09.1988 between the Board and Bhagwan Devi was valid and enforceable under the relevant legal framework.3. Whether the Arbitral Award dated 10.07.2007, which upheld the agreement, was in conflict with the public policy of India.4. Whether the actions of the Board and the subsequent judicial decisions were consistent with the statutory provisions governing land acquisition and the powers of the Board.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Authority of the Board to Enter into the AgreementThe legal framework under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976, and its successor, the Act of 1998, was central to determining the Board's authority. Both statutes established the Board as a body corporate with the power to acquire and hold property, subject to statutory provisions. However, the Court noted that such acquisition required a document of conveyance, which was absent in this case. The Board's attempt to return the land through an agreement contradicted the statutory requirement for formal conveyance and government sanction.2. Validity and Enforceability of the AgreementThe agreement was executed without a formal conveyance deed transferring the land to the Board, thereby questioning its validity. The Court highlighted that the land, once acquired and possession taken, vested absolutely in the Government, precluding any withdrawal or private agreement to reverse the acquisition. The absence of government consent further undermined the agreement's enforceability.3. Conflict with Public PolicyThe Court applied Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows setting aside an arbitral award if it conflicts with public policy. The agreement was deemed to contravene the fundamental policy of Indian law by attempting to nullify a public purpose acquisition through private negotiation. The Court emphasized that allowing such agreements would constitute a fraud on the State's sovereign power of eminent domain.4. Judicial Oversight and Statutory ComplianceThe Court criticized the lower courts for failing to address the fundamental issues of statutory compliance and public policy. The judgments under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were found to have grievously erred by upholding the arbitral award without considering these crucial aspects.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the agreement dated 30.09.1988 was invalid as it contravened statutory provisions and public policy. The arbitral award upholding this agreement was similarly flawed. The Court underscored the principle that private agreements cannot undermine the State's exercise of eminent domain for public purposes.Verbatim Quotes:'Validating this dubious enterprise by a statutory beneficiary of a compulsory acquisition would be nothing short of permitting a fraud on the exercise of such sovereign power by the State.''The agreement dated 30.09.1988 was clearly in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law and the Arbitral Award dated 10.07.2007, upholding the said agreement, was equally so.'Core Principles Established:The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory bodies must adhere to statutory requirements for property acquisition and cannot unilaterally reverse public acquisitions through private agreements. It also highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding public policy and statutory compliance in arbitral proceedings.Final Determinations:The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments of the Delhi High Court and the arbitral award. The Court concluded that the agreement and subsequent arbitral award were invalid, emphasizing the need for statutory compliance and adherence to public policy in land acquisition matters.