Pending land-acquisition appeals, 8.33% of enhanced compensation may be released, with the balance secured in fixed deposits.

The petitions arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1987 under the Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at ₹20 and ₹27 per square yard; on reference, the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Meerut enhanced compensation to ₹690 and ₹720 per square yard for the respective villages.

The Authority challenged the Reference Court’s award in appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pending before the Allahabad High Court. Interim orders stayed implementation of the award subject to a deposit of 50% of the enhanced compensation in cash and security for the balance, while permitting claimants to withdraw the cash deposit.

The Supreme Court considered the batch of special leave petitions alongside a coordinate Bench’s earlier order directing release of approximately 8.33% of the enhanced compensation in a similar matter.

1. Whether, while the Authority’s appeals against the enhanced compensation award remained pending before the High Court, the Supreme Court should prescribe interim deposit and release arrangements in the special leave petitions.

2. Whether the pending first appeals concerning the acquisition should be expedited in view of the age of the proceedings and the substantial enhancement of compensation.

The Court noted that the Reference Court’s award was under challenge in appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and relied on the approach adopted by a coordinate Bench in a similar proceeding, which had directed the release of approximately 8.33% of the enhanced compensation subject to conditions.

The Court applied that approach to maintain parity while preserving the parties’ rights pending the High Court’s decision; it did not set out a broader statutory test or decide the merits of the compensation appeals.

Because the compensation award remained under challenge before the High Court, the Supreme Court considered it unnecessary to keep the special leave petitions pending, but directed deposit of the full enhanced compensation with the High Court Registry to safeguard the claimants’ interests while preserving the Authority’s challenge.

To maintain parity with the coordinate Bench’s order, it directed that 8.33% be set apart and remitted to the claimants, with the balance invested in interest-bearing fixed deposits pending the appeals.

The Court made the release without prejudice to the appeals and required the claimants to return the released amount if the appeals succeeded.

Given that the acquisition proceedings dated back to 1987 and the award imposed a substantial financial liability while leaving the claimants uncertain about final compensation, the Court requested priority hearing of the appeals, preferably within six months.

The Registrar General was to set apart and remit 8.33% of the enhanced compensation to each respondent and invest the balance in separate interest-bearing fixed deposits, subject to further orders in the appeals.

The High Court was requested to hear and decide the appeals on a priority basis, preferably within six months; if unable to do so for valid reasons, the respondents could seek release of a further amount as the High Court considered appropriate.