Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3674-3675 OF 2023, CIVIL APPEAL NO.3676-3688 OF 2023, CIVIL APPEAL NO.3869 OF 2023, M.A. NO.2424 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.9732 OF 2014, M.A. NO.2663 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.36027 OF 2009, M.A. NO.2404 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.28146 OF 2009, M.A. NO.2305 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.23068-23070 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2402 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.23900 OF 2009, M.A. NO.2600 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2602 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2598 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2601 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2603 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2597 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2604 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2596 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2416 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.25328-25360 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2418 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.25328-25360 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2412 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.30610 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2413 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.20397 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2417 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.25328-25360 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2414 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.25328-25360 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2423 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.25328-25360 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2422 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.25328-25360 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2415 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.25328-25360 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2421 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.25328-25360 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2420 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.25328-25360 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2419 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.25328-25360 OF 2010, CIVIL APPEAL NO……….. OF 2024 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.20251 OF 2023] M.A. NO.2606 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2605 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, M.A. NO.2411 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.23068-23070 OF 2010, M.A. NO.274 OF 2021 IN SLP (C) NO.9732 OF 2014, M.A. NO.2607 OF 2023 IN SLP (C) NO.29597-29639 OF 2010, CIVIL APPEAL NO. ……….. OF 2024, [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. ……… OF 2024] [ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO (s). 9072 OF 2024]
Decided on : 10-07-2024
Civil Appeal Nos. 3674-3675 OF 2023
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 23(1) and 28-A – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Inconsistency and disparity in amounts awarded at different stages of judicial process – While 1894 Act does not provide a strict definition of term market-value, it essentially refers to price that asset would likely fetch in an open market transaction – For utilizing these sale deeds as foundation for determining compensation, it is imperative that these sale instances satisfy certain criteria of comparability – There exists no direct piece of evidence to determine fair and just compensation in instant cases – Court will resort to settled principle of Guesstimation. (Paras 23, 25, 30 and 31)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 23(1) and 28-A – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Principle of Guesstimation – Guesstimation is a heuristic device that enables Court, in absence of direct evidence and relevant sale exemplars, to make a reasonable and informed guess or estimation of market value of land under acquisition – Determining compensation for land is not a matter of exact science but involves a significant element of estimation – Process of determining compensation is not entirely subjective – While it may not be possible to arrive at a definitive figure, exercise is still epistemologically objective in so far as it is grounded in evidence and consideration of relevant factors – Court must embrace a holistic view and consider all relevant factors and existing evidence, even if not directly comparable, to arrive at a fair determination of compensation. (Paras 31, 32, 33 and 34)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Determination of market value of land – It would be unfair to single out a few individual landowners and deny them benefit of just compensation, owing to factors and processes outside their control – Mere absence of multiple sale exemplars also does not by itself support a conclusion that market condition was unfavourable or that lands had stagnant demand and low value, as sellers often hold on to lands whose prices are in process of increasing or likely to increase in near future, owing to urbanisation or other upcoming development projects and changes – Even devoid of numerous sale exemplars showing frequent transactions and considering factors enumerated in preceding paragraph, value of subject land was appreciating at around 15% annually – Invoking powers under Article 142 of Constitution with a view to do complete justice between parties, it is fit to enhance compensation notwithstanding dismissal of earlier Review and Curative Petitions. (Paras 40, 41, 47 and 48)
(D) Miscellaneous Application – Maintainability – Miscellaneous Applications based on change of law are typically not maintainable, except in certain exceptional circumstances and in interests of justice. (Para 46)
Facts of the case:
Following questions arise for deliberation by this Court:
i. Should compensation be enhanced, and if so, to what extent? How should the quantum be calculated?
ii. Are Miscellaneous Applications maintainable?
iii. Can the landowners rely upon Section 28A of 1894 Act to seek parity with Bir Singh (supra)?
Findings of Court:
Enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited with Reference Court within a period of eight weeks. It shall then be disbursed to claimants at the earliest.
Result : Appeals allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. These appeals and applications have been preferred by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘NOIDA’) and landowners owning land in Village Chhalera Bangar, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad, contesting various identical impugned orders, including the judgment dated 08.02.2021 and in the review order dated 22.07.2021 passed in the lead case by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter, ‘High Court’), enhancing the compensation granted to the landowners for an acquisition initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, ‘1894 Act’). In the appeals preferred by NOIDA, the High Court has enhanced the rate of compensation from the range of INR 222 and 233 per sq. yd. as granted by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad (hereinafter, ‘Reference Court’), to INR 449 per sq. yd. Whereas, in the appeals and applications filed by the landowners, it was enhanced to INR 340 per sq. yd.
A. FACTS
3. The present controversy has a chequered history. The acquisition process was initiated by State of U.P./NOIDA on 05.01.1991 through a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, for the acquisition of approximately 492 acres of land in Village Chhalera Bangar, intended for planned Industrial Development. Afterwards, on 07.01.1992, the government issued a declaration under Section 6 read in conjunction with the ‘urgency clause’ contained in Section 17 of the 1894 Act. Possession of the land was taken on 30.03.1992, 07.08.1995 and 18.11.1995.
4. Subsequently, on 17.08.1996, the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter, ‘LAO’) issued an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, affixing compensation at INR 110 per sq. yd. The LAO relied on a sale deed dated 16.12.1988, whereby one Jyoti Prasad had sold the land to G.R. Pant at a rate of INR 125 per sq. yd. Applying a further 12% deduction, owing to the large area under acquisition, the rate of compensation was finally determined at INR 110 per sq. yd.
5. Following the award, several landowners made a reference before the Reference Court seeking enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The record indicates two kinds of compensation rates granted by the Reference Court: first, INR 233 and second, INR 222 per square yard. In both these awards, the evidence suggested the market value of the land at the relevant time, at INR 390 per sq. yd., upon which a 40% deduction for development was applied. However, the final figure achieved after this calculation has been noted differently in both orders, where INR 222 per square yard seems to be the result of a calculation error.
6. Some landowners further preferred appeals before the High Court. One such initiative was filed by Jagdish Singh etc., who challenged the Reference Court’s award in First Appeal No. 774/2001, titled Jagdish Chandra and others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. The High Court through its judgment dated 14.12.2007, reversed the deductions made by the Reference Court from the assessed market value and directed the State/NOIDA authorities to recalculate the compensation at INR 297.50 per sq. yd. without deducting development charges. However, in another similar group of appeals, the High Court, vide the later judgment dated 09.05.2008, refused to enhance the compensation.
7. The landowners’ review application(s) against the order dated 09.05.2008 were dismissed by the High Court observing that they could independently file appeals, if so aggrieved. However, in response to a later application seeking clarification, the High Court on 19.05.2010 clarified the operative part of its earlier judgment and enhanced the compensation to INR 340 per sq. yd. The other alike appeals filed by similarly situated landowners were also allowed in part and the compensation was enhanced to INR 340 per sq. yd.
8. Seeking further enhancement, a few landowners approached this Court, but their Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) we
(1) Acquisition of land – Where there exists no direct piece of evidence to determine fair and just compensation, Court will resort to settled principle of Guesstimation.(2) Acquisition of land – Det....
The market value of the land for the purpose of determining the compensation should be assessed by considering the smallness of the plot, the highest exemplar, and the purpose of acquisition, and by ....
(1) Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Process of assessing or affixing compensation is not tethered to precision but is rather aimed at a nuanced estimation of pertinent factors.(2) Acq....
Acquisition of land – Compensation determined for lands acquired subsequently cannot be said to be comparable at.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
