Full Judgment Text
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8331 8345 OF 2022
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY …Appellant
Versus
RAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA (DEAD)
THROUGH LEGAL HEIR & ANR. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in respective First
Appeals No.657 of 2017 and other allied First Appeals by which
after condoning the delay of 22 years in preferring the
respective first appeals, the High Court has enhanced the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.11.17
17:01:12 IST
Reason:
amount of compensation for the lands acquired to Rs.149 per
1
sq.yard, the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
(NOIDA) has preferred the present appeals.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
(NOIDA) has vehemently submitted that there was a huge delay
of 22 years in preferring the appeals by the land owners, which
ought not to have been condoned by the High Court.
2.1 In the alternative, it is submitted that in any case the
acquiring body – NOIDA shall not be saddled with the liability
to pay the statutory benefits and the interest for 22 years, as it
would cause financial burden upon the NOIDA and it may
affect the project cost.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners
have submitted that as such the land owners shall be entitled
to compensation at Rs.297/ per sq.yard as determined by this
Hon’ble Court in the case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS.
Vs. New OKHLA Industrial Development Authority and
another decided on 26.9.2018 in Civil Appeal No.10013 of
.
2018
2
3.1 It is submitted that in any case when it has been found
that the land owners shall be entitled to compensation at
Rs.149/ per sq.yard considering the decision of this Hon’ble
Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development
decided on
Authority (NOIDA) VS. Deo Karan & Ors.
01.05.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4879 of 2018 and when the
same was with respect to the acquisition of the year 1982 and
the land owners are entitled to just compensation, no error has
been committed by the High Court in entertaining the
application for condoning the delay in preferring the appeals
and awarding the compensation at par with other land owners
whose lands came to be acquired in the year 1982.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present
case the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was issued on 05.01.1982. The Reference Court
determined the compensation at Rs.20/ per sq.yard by
3
impugned judgment dated 15.12.1993. After a period of 22
years the land owners preferred the present appeals before the
High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order the
High Court after condoning the delay of 22 years in preferring
the appeals has enhanced the amount of compensation to
Rs.149/ per sq.yard at par with the land owners in the case of
Deo Karan & Ors. (supra) by which this Court with respect to
the acquisition of the year 1982 determined the compensation
at Rs.149/ per sq.yard. Therefore, in the present case the land
owners shall be entitled to compensation at Rs.149/ per
sq.yard at par with other land owners whose lands were
acquired in the year 1982. It cannot be disputed that the land
owners, whose lands have been acquired under the provisions
of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, are entitled to a reasonable and
just compensation at par with the other similarly situated land
owners.
5.1 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the land owners
that they shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of
Rs.297/ per sq.yard relying upon the decision of this Court in
4
the case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. (supra) is
concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such
the land owners have not preferred the appeals before this
Court. It is the NOIDA who has preferred the present appeals.
Under the circumstances in the appeals preferred by the NOIDA
questioning the determination of the compensation at Rs.149/
per sq.yard, the land owners cannot be permitted to say that
they are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation over
and above Rs.149/ per sq.yard. So far as the land owners are
concerned, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court determining and/or awarding the compensation of
Rs.149/ per sq.yard has attained the finality.
5.2 Even otherwise as rightly observed by the High Court, the
land owners are not entitled to the compensation at Rs.297/
per sq.yard considering the decision of this Court in the case of
Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. (supra). Nothing was pointed
out that how the case of the land owners was comparable with
that of the case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. (supra).
On the contrary with respect to the acquisition of the year
5
1982, this Hon’ble Court determined the compensation at
Rs.149/ per sq.yard in the case of (supra).
Deo Karan & Ors.
5.3 However, at the same time the acquiring body and the
beneficiary of acquisition shall not be saddled with the liability
of statutory benefits and the interest which may be available
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the delayed period. In
the present case the delay of 22 years can be said to be a
substantial delay. However, as the claimants are held to be
entitled the enhanced amount of compensation, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the High Court can be said to be
justified in condoning the delay. However, at the same time,
the High Court has erred in awarding other statutory benefits
and interest for the delayed period. To saddle with the liability
to pay statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period
upon the beneficiary/acquiring body would be a financial
burden upon the public body and it may increase the project
cost which shall be against the public interests. It cannot be
disputed that the liability towards the statutory benefits and
the interest under the Act, 1984 would be a huge liability
6
considering the interest at the rate of 15% per annum,
solatium, price rise etc. Therefore, while condoning the delay
and enhancing the amount of compensation at par with other
land owners, the High Court ought not to have saddled the
liability upon the appellant to pay statutory benefits and the
interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the
delayed period. To the aforesaid extent the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be
modified and the present appeals are required to be partly
allowed to the aforesaid extent.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above all
these Appeals Succeed in part. The impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court passed in
respective appeals is hereby partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent denying the statutory benefits and the interest which
may be payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the
period between the judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court i.e. 15.12.1993 till the respective first appeals
were filed after curing the defects. Meaning thereby the original
7
land owners/claimants shall not be entitled to any statutory
benefits including the interest payable under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced amount of
compensation for the period between 15.12.1993 till the
respective first appeals after curing the defects were filed.
Present Appeals are Partly Allowed to the aforesaid extent.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
…………………………..J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………...J.
(M.M. SUNDRESH)
New Delhi;
November 17, 2022.
8