The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Hima Kohli of the apex court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs Omvir Singh & Ors held that the compensation determined on the basis of the Notification 5 years later, cannot be a yardstick for determining the compensation for the land which is acquired five years before.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the land in dispute was acquired by the NOIDA. A declaration under the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. The possession of the said land was taken over by the state. The Land Acquisition Officer/Collector declared the Award and awarded/determined the compensation at Rs.30,000/ per bigha, relying upon the sale deed of certain parcels of land in the village itself. The father of the contesting respondents accepted the compensation. Thereafter, the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 raising objections against the Award was made. The original claimants claimed compensation @ Rs.60,000/ per bigha. After a period of 16 years from the date of review application, the respondents filed the present first appeal before the High Court and relied upon the judgment in some other first appeals by which the compensation was enhanced to Rs.297/ per sq.yard. The High Court has condoned the delay of 16 years, however it has denied the interest during the period of delay, and has enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.297/ per yard.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NOIDA has contended that the high court has committed an error in entertaining the appeal after a period of 16 years from the date of dismissal of the review application and after a period of 26 years from the date of the decision by the Reference Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NOIDA relied upon the judgements titled Asha Ram (Dead) through LRs and Others vs. U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad and Another, and Narendra and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants contended that the High Court has not committed any error in condoning the delay of 16/26 years by observing that the claimants are entitled to just compensation. It was also submitted that the amount of compensation has been awarded @ Rs.297/ per sq.yard, which cannot be said to be unreasonable and the High Court has not committed any error.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that the amount of compensation to Rs.297/ per sq.yard with respect to the land acquired in Village Makanpur and other surrounding villages acquired for the very same project, but with respect to the acquisition of the years 1986/1988. However, subsequently in the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad (supra) and after considering the decision of this Court in the case of Narendra & Ors. (supra) with respect to the village Makanpur and other surrounding villages with respect to the acquisition of the year 1982, This Court has determined the compensation at Rs.120/ per sq.yard.
In the said decision, while refusing to accept the claim of Rs.297/ per sq.yard as awarded in the case of Narendra & Ors. (supra) which was with respect to the acquisition of 1988, this Court has observed that the compensation determined on the basis of the Notification 5 years later, cannot be a yardstick for determining the compensation for the land which is acquired five years before.
This Court has also taken note of the fact that between the year 1982 and 1987/1988, development activities had been undertaken. The hon’ble court ordered and directed that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.120/ per sq.yard along with all other statutory benefits and interest allowable under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
CASE NAME- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs Omvir Singh & Ors
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO.9085 of 2022
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.9558 of 2020)
(@ Diary No.16450 of 2020)
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Hima Kohli
DATE- 15.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :