IMPORTANT POINTS
Compensation should be just and fair irrespective of claim made by the land owner. There is no cap on the maximum rate of compensation.

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

A very limited, but pertinent, question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Land of the appellants was acquired by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide Notification dated 12th September, 1986 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It was followed by the declaration dated 24th February, 1988 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. It may be mentioned that vide the aforesaid Notification, large tracts of land were acquired, belonging to various land owners/villagers of Village Makanpur Paragana Loni, Tehsil -Dadri, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh for planned development of Vaishali. After the acquisition of this land, it was handed over to Ghaziabad Development Authority (for short, ‘GDA’) for development.

2) The award dated 18th January, 1990 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50 per square yard. The appellants as well as other villagers were not satisfied with the rates so fixed and, therefore, sought the reference under Section 18 of the Act. Matter was referred to the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad for determination of market value of the acquired land. Reference court, vide its judgment and order dated 19th April, 1999, increased the rate of compensation from Rs.50/-per sq. yards to Rs.90/-per square yards. Even this increase in the compensation was not to the satisfaction of the land owners. Various appeals came to be filed. Appeals were also filed by these appellants claiming that the compensation be enhanced to Rs. 115/-per square yards. Some of the other land owners whose lands were acquired, however, had claimed higher compensation. The first batch of appeals filed by others was decided by the High Court by judgment dated 13th November, 2014. The High Court found merit in those appeals and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.297/-per square yards. When the appeals of the appellants herein came up for hearing before the High Court, the High Court took note of its earlier judgment and accepted the fact that the land of the appellants was acquired by the same Notification vide which land of others was acquired wherein the High Court had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.297/-per square yards. Notwithstanding the same, insofar as the appellants are concerned, the High Court has limited the compensation to Rs.115/-per square yards because of the reasoning that the appellant had demanded compensation at that rate only and had paid the court fees also accordingly. Therefore, opined the High Court, it was difficult to allow compensation at a rate higher than the rate claimed by the appellants.

3) In this backdrop, the question that falls for consideration is as to whether the High Court was precluded from granting compensation at the rate of Rs.297/-per square yards which was the rate of compensation awarded to other farmers of the said village whose lands were acquired under the same Notification and were similarly situated.

4) Before proceeding to discuss the aforesaid question, we may mention that insofar as the order of the High Court fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.297/-per square yards is concerned, special leave petition was filed by the GDA which was dismissed by this Court. Review thereof was sought which was also dismissed. Even the curative petition filed by the GDA came to be dismissed. Thus, the order of the High Court granting compensation at the rate of Rs.297/-per square yards in respect of these acquisition proceedings has attained finality.

5) After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the issue has already been settled by this Court in Ashok Kumar and Another vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544 wherein it is held that it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of claim