NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. OMVIR SINGH

  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9085 of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.9558 of 2020) (@ Diary No.16450 of 2020) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority        …Appellant Versus Omvir Singh & Ors.                         …Respondents J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the High Court Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.12.15 18:15:16 IST Reason: of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Defective No.308 of 2015, by which the High Court has rejected the said appeal after 1 a period of approximately 16 years (as per the appellant, there was a delay of 26 years) by which the High Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the land owners to Rs.297/­ per sq.yard, NOIDA has preferred the present appeal.    2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell, are as under: 2.1 That   the   land   in   question   situated   in   Village   Gheja Tilapatabad, Tehsil and Pargana Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now District   Gautam   Budh   Nagar)   was   acquired   for   the   planned development by the NOIDA, vide Notification issued under Section 4,   dated   22.11.1982.     A   declaration   under   the   provisions   of Section   6   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   was   issued   on 23.11.1982.  The possession of the acquired land was taken over by   the   State   on   22.02.1983.     The   Land   Acquisition Officer/Collector   declared   the   Award   dated   05.09.1983   and awarded/determined the compensation at Rs.30,000/­ per bigha, relying upon the sale deed dated 02.11.1982 of certain parcels of land in the village itself.  The father of the contesting respondents 2 accepted   the   compensation.     At   the   instance   of   the   original owners – father of the contesting respondents, a 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.  On contest, by a detailed judgment   and   order   dated   04.05.1989,   the   Reference   Court dismissed the said Reference along with other references.  Review applications were filed which came to be dismissed in the year 1998.  That after a period of 16 years from the date of rejection of the review applications in the year 2014/2015, 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.   By the impugned judgment and order, 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.  Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the NOIDA. 3 3. Learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   NOIDA   has vehemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred 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. 3.1 It is submitted that even otherwise, on merits also in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of   Asha Ram (Dead)   through   LRs   and   Others   vs.   U.P.   Awas   Avam  Vikas Parishad and Another, (2022) 2 SCC 567   with respect to the land  acquisition   of   1982,   this   Hon’ble   Court  has   reduced  the amount of compensation to Rs.120/­ per sq.yard, the claimants shall not be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.297/­ per sq.yard, as awarded by the High Court. 3.2 It is submitted that as such, in the subsequent decision in the case of  U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad (supra),  this Court did consider   its   earlier   decision  in  the   case   of   Narendra  and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 4 426,  by which this Court for the acquisition with respect to the nearby villages of the year 1988, has allowed compensation @ Rs.297/­ per sq.yard.  However, it is submitted that considering the   development   which   took   place   between   the   year   1982­ 1986/1988  this  Court  in the  case  of   U.P.  Awas  Avam  Vikas Parishad   (supra),   did   not   accept   the   case   on   behalf   of   the claimants for awarding Rs.297/­ per sq.yard and determined the compensation   for   the   lands   acquired   in   the   year   1982,   at Rs.120/­ per sq.yard. 4. While   opposing   the   present   appeal,   learned   counsel appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   claimants   has   vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, 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. 4.1 It is submitted that considering the case of the other land owners decided vide judgment and order passed in the year 2014 with respect  to  similar  acquisition  with  respect  to  the   nearby 5 villages,   the   amount   of   compensation   had   been   enhanced   to Rs.297/­ per sq.yard.   Following the same, in the present case 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. 4.2 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original claimants has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the High Court, confirmed by this Court by which the compensation has been determined at Rs.297/­ per sq.yard. INDEX

6

7

8

9

10

Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions/orders passed by the High Court as well as this Court, it is prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.1 So far as the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the High Court has erred in condoning the delay of 16/26 years in preferring the appeal is concerned, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that even while enhancing the amount of compensation and entertaining the appeal, the High Court has denied the interest for the period of   delay   and   has   exercised   its   discretion   in   favour   of   the 11 claimants, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. 5.2 Now   so   far   as   merits   of   the   appeal   and   the   impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court enhancing the amount of compensation at Rs.297/­ per sq.yard is concerned and the reliance placed upon the decisions of the High Court and this Court referred to hereinabove and relied upon on behalf of the claimants is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that in the present case, the acquisition is of the year 1982 and in all other relied upon cases the acquisition(s) is/are of the year 1986/88.  In all those cases, where the amount of compensation has been determined @ Rs.297/­ per sq.yard, the acquisition(s) is/are   of   the   years   1986/1988   with   respect   to   the   Village Makanpur and other nearby villages acquired for the development of NOIDA/Ghaziabad.   In the case of   Narendra & Ors. (supra), this   Court   had   enhanced   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 12 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   with respect Narendra & Ors. (supra) to the village Makanpur and other surrounding villages situated at   Village   Prahladgarh,   Village   Jhandapur,   Village   Sahibabad, Village Arthala 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.   which was with respect to the acquisition of 1988, this (supra) 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.  Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of   U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad (supra)   to the present case, the  claimants shall not be entitled  to  the  same compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after 13 5 years from the date of acquisition in the present case.   As observed hereinabove, in the present case, Section 4 Notification had been issued on 22.11.1982 and the relied upon decisions with respect to Village Makanpur and other villages are of the year 1986/88, which as observed by this Court in the aforesaid decision in the case of  U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad (supra), cannot   be   the   basis.     Under   the   above   circumstances,   the impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court awarding compensation @ Rs.297/­ per sq.yard is unsustainable and it  is   held  that the  original  claimants   shall  be  entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.120/­ per sq.yard.     6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the present appeal succeeds in part.   The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby modified.  It is 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.  However, the claimants shall   not   be   entitled   to   the   statutory   benefits   including   the 14 interest   under   the   Act,   1894   on   the   enhanced   amount   of compensation   for   the   delayed   period   in   preferring   the   appeal before the High Court i.e. from the date of rejection of the review application till the first appeal was filed before the High Court.    Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.                                                                                                       …………………………..J.         (M. R. SHAH) …………………………...J.        (HIMA KOHLI) NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 15, 2022. 15