Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2023 INSC 1019
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7504-7505 OF 2023
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.16572/2016]
MOHAR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH COLLECTOR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. The land of the appellants, situated in village
Khora, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad,
was part and parcel of the total land measuring 902.2046
acres which was proposed to be acquired by a notification
dated 17.03.1988 published on 19.03.1988 under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the
Act”). It appears that finally, land measuring 337.892
acres only, including that of the appellants, was
acquired and the award was passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer on 01.02.1991, granting compensation
at the rate of Rs.70 per sq. yard.
3. Most of the land owners, including the appellants,
filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned
Xth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad vide an award
dated 06.04.1998 partly accepted those references and
enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.106 per sq.
yard.
1
4. Various land owners then approached the High Court
by way of First Appeals, for further enhancement of
compensation. These appeals included First Appeal
No.491/1998 (Veer Singh & others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others), First Appeal No.493/1998 (Megh Singh
and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) and First Appeal
No.477/1998 (Amar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others) etc.
5. The appellants, however, did not file any appeal
before the High Court within a reasonable time. They
eventually preferred the first appeals in the year 2011.
Their appeals were barred by limitation; hence, they
applied for condonation of delay of 12 years and 353
days. The grounds taken by the appellants for condonation
of delay were that due to illiteracy and poverty, they
could not arrange the Court Fee and that they were
advised to file the appeal(s) in September, 2011. They
also put forward the plea that the first appeals against
the same reference award were pending consideration
before the High Court.
6. The High Court has vide impugned order dated
09.03.2016 declined to condone the delay and
consequently, the first appeal(s) preferred by the
appellants have been dismissed.
7. Meanwhile, the batch of first appeals preferred by
other land owners, came to be decided on 04.07.2016,
wherein the High Court enhanced the compensation at the
2
rate of Rs.130 per sq. yard. The operative part of the
judgment dated 04.07.2016 reads as follows:
“19. In view of the above discussion, all the
appeals filed by the Claimants-appellants
deserve to be allowed to the extent that the
appellants shall be entitled to receive
compensation @ 130/- per Sq. yard along with
all statutory benefits and interest after
adjustment of the amount already received by
them. The deficiency in Court fees shall be
recovered from the Claimants-appellants at the
time of preparation of final decree.”
8. It is also a matter of record that some of the land
owners, being still dissatisfied with the rate of
compensation determined by the High Court, approached
this Court in C.A. No.12631/2017 (Jitendra and others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another) & connected matters.
A coordinate Bench vide order dated 12.12.2017 allowed
those appeals in part, in terms of the following order:
“Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 17th March,
1988. The Land Acquisition Officer granted
compensation at the rate of Rs.70/- per square
yard and the Reference Court enhanced it to
Rs.106/- per square yard. The value determined
by the High Court was Rs.130/- per square yard
after making a deduction of 35% towards
development cost.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, in
our opinion, the only modification required in
the impugned orders is with respect to the
aspect that 25% deduction deserves to be made
instead of 35% made by the High Court. We make
deduction of 25% in the facts and circumstances
of the case instead of 35%. Thus, the amount of
compensation comes to Rs.150/- per square yard
instead of Rs.130/- per square yard. The
compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.150/- per
3
square yard along with statutory benefits.
The appeals filed by the land owners are
allowed to the aforesaid extent.”
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants firstly
seek parity with their co-land owners to whom the High
Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.130 per sq.
yard, followed by further enhancement by this Court to
Rs.150 per sq. yard. It is urged that the High Court
ought to have condoned the delay and treated the
appellants at par with their co-villagers, whose appeals
were at that time pending consideration before the High
Court. On the same analogy, he seeks the higher
compensation as assessed by this Court in Jitendra and
others (Supra), without prejudice to the second
contention raised hereinafter.
10. It is then canvassed that the Reference Court while
assessing the market value of Rs.106 per sq. yard had
relied upon the rate of compensation awarded for the
adjoining land of village Makanpur and since, the High
Court subsequently enhanced the compensation for the land
of village Makanpur to Rs.297 per sq. yard in First
Appeal No.522/2009 (Pradeep Kumar and another vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and others) decided on 21.04.2016, such
revised rate deserves to be adopted to restore parity
between the land of village Khora with that of village
Makanpur. On this premise, it is asserted that the
appellants too are entitled to be compensated with the
4
higher rate of Rs.297 per sq. yard.
11. Contrarily, learned Senior Counsel for the NOIDA
vehemently contends that there was an inordinate and
unexplained delay of almost 13 years in filing the first
appeal(s). The appellants who slept over the matter being
satisfied with the rate of compensation as determined by
the Reference Court, have rightly been non-suited by the
High Court on account of their gross negligence.
Consequently, the appellants forfeited their so called
right to seek parity which was nothing but an
afterthought claim made out of greed. He points out that
the first appeal(s) were filed with certain defects,
including deficient Court Fees and they never cured such
defects. According to learned Senior Counsel, the plea of
illiteracy or poverty was a lame excuse. Not only that
the appellants are residents of an area which falls in
NCR, they had also gotten a handsome compensation amount
from the Reference Court, which fact alone belies their
plea of poverty and ignorance.
12. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material placed on record, we are
satisfied that the appellants are entitled to seek parity
with their co-villagers in the grant of compensation for
their acquired land. This Court has consistently held in
a catena of decisions that the inordinate delay in filing
appeal in compensatory matters, per se, may not be fatal
as the rights and equities between the parties can be
5
well balanced by denying the statutory benefits, such as
interest for the delayed period. We are thus of the
considered opinion that the delay in filing the first
appeal(s) could be condoned subject to the condition that
the appellants would not be entitled to enure undue
benefit for the delayed period. We grant such indulgence
in the appellant’s favour also for the reason that a
batch of first appeals at the instance of other land
owners was still pending consideration before the High
Court. All that the High Court ought to have emphatically
denied to the late-comers was the benefit of interest
including on the solatium, under Section 34 of the Act
for the period from the date of passing of the award by
the Reference Court till the filing of the first appeals.
13. Adverting to the appellants’ claim for enhanced
compensation at the rate fixed by the High Court in
respect of the land of village Makanpur, it may be
noticed that such a plea was expressly raised by the land
owners before the High Court when their first appeals
were decided on 04.07.2016. The High Court unequivocally
rejected the said claim while fixing the compensation at
a lower rate of Rs.130 per sq. yard for the land of
village Khora. This Court in further appeal partly
accepted the claim of the land owners of village Khora
and enhanced the compensation to Rs.150 per sq. yard. In
other words, the claim of parity between the acquired
lands of village Khora and Makanpur was impliedly
6
rejected by this Court. We see no reason to take a
different view. Consequently, we do not find any merit in
the plea that the appellants are entitled to compensation
at par with the land owners of village Makanpur.
14. There is one more plausible reason for us to turn
down the appellant’s claim for the higher rate of Rs.297
per sq. yard. We have condoned the delay of nearly 13
years in filing of their first appeals, only to accord
parity between the similarly placed land-owners on the
anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution. If the
appellants are granted compensation higher than their co-
landowners, despite the fact that such counterparts were
vigilant in pursuing their remedy promptly, it will lead
to hostile discrimination viz those landowners whose fate
already stands sealed upto this Court. This will also
amount to granting premium on, what can be aptly termed
as stale, belated and chance claim of the appellants.
15. Having held so, the appeals are allowed in part;
the appellants are held entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.150 per sq. yard for their respective acquired
land. However, the compensation amount shall not include
statutory interest, including on solatium, as per the
rate prescribed under Section 34 of the Act, for the
period from the date of passing of the award by the
Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act till the
filing of the respective first appeals before the High
Court. The appellants shall be required to make good the
7
deficiency in Court Fees before the High Court within
four weeks, whereupon only the arrears of enhanced
compensation shall be paid to them within eight weeks
thereafter.
16. Ordered accordingly.
...................J.
(SURYA KANT)
...................J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
New Delhi;
November 07, 2023
8