Supreme Court of India
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR & ANR. on 17 November 2022
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 609
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
RAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA (DEAD)THROUGH LEGAL HEIR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8331-8345 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 17, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Delay of 22 years in preferringfirst appeals – Acquisition notification was issued in 1982 –Reference court determined compensation at Rs.20 per yard – Aftera period of 22 years, land owners filed first appeals – By impugnedjudgment, the High Court condoned delay of 22 years and enhancedthe amount of compensation to Rs.149 per sq.yard at par with theland owners in the case of Deo Karan & Ors. by which this Courtwith respect to the acquisition of the year 1982 determined thecompensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard – Held: The land owners wererightly held entitled to compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard at parwith other land owners whose lands were acquired in the year 1982– However, submission of the land owners that they are entitled tocompensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard relying upon the decision ofthis Court in the case of Nanak (Deceased) cannot be accepted asthe land owners had not preferred the appeals before this Courtand it was NOIDA who had filed these appeals – However, to saddlewith the liability to pay statutory benefits and interest for the delayedperiod of 22 years upon the beneficiary/acquiring body wouldbe a financial burden upon the public body and it may increasethe project cost which shall be against the public interests –Therefore, while condoning the delay and enhancing the amount ofcompensation at par with other land owners, the High Court oughtnot to have saddled the liability upon the appellant to pay statutorybenefits and the interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 for the delayed period – To that extent the impugned judgmentis modified.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 05.01.1982. The Reference
A
B
CDEF
G
H
ACourt determined the compensation at Rs.20/- per sq. yard byimpugned judgment. After a period of 22 years, the land ownerspreferred the appeals before the High Court. By the impugnedjudgment, the High Court after condoning the delay of 22 yearsin preferring the appeals has enhanced the amount ofcompensation to Rs.149/- per sq.yard at par with the land ownersBin the case of Deo Karan & Ors. by which this Court with respectto the acquisition of the year 1982 determined the compensationat Rs.149/- per sq.yard. Therefore, in the present case, the landowners shall be entitled to compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yardat par with other land owners whose lands were acquired in theCyear 1982. It cannot be disputed that the land owners, whoselands have been acquired under the provisions of Land AcquisitionAct, 1984, are entitled to a reasonable and just compensation atpar with the other similarly situated land owners. [Para 5][613-B-D]
D2. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the land ownersthat they shall be entitled to compensation at the rate ofRs.297/- per sq.yard relying upon the decision of this Court inthe case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. is concerned, at theoutset it is required to be noted that as such the land ownersEhave not preferred the appeals before this Court. It is the NOIDAwho has preferred the present appeals. Under the circumstancesin the appeals preferred by the NOIDA questioning thedetermination of the compensation at Rs.149/-per sq.yard, theland owners cannot be permitted to say that they are entitled tothe enhanced amount of compensation over and aboveFRs.149/- per sq.yard. So far as the land owners are concerned,the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Courtdetermining and/or awarding the compensation of Rs.149/- persq.yard has attained the finality. Even otherwise as rightlyobserved by the High Court, the land owners are not entitled tothe compensation at Rs.297/- per sq.yard considering the decisionGof this Court in the case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. [Paras5.1, 5.2][613-E-H]
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA)v. Deo Karan & Ors. decided on 01.05.2018 in CivilHAppeal No.4879 of 2018 – relied on Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. v. New OKHLAIndustrial Development Authority and Another (2019)17 SCC 522 – referred to
3. In the present case, the delay of 22 years can be said tobe a substantial delay. The High Court has erred in awardingother statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period. Tosaddle with the liability to pay statutory benefits and interest forthe delayed period upon the beneficiary/acquiring body would bea financial burden upon the public body and it may increase theproject cost which shall be against the public interests. [Para5.3][614-C-D]
Case Law Reference
(2019) 17 SCC 522referred toPara 5.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8331-8345 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2017 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Defective Nos. 345/2015 (laterrenumbered as First Appeal No. 106/2019), 349/2015 (later renumberedas First Appeal No. 104/2019), 397/2015 (later renumbered as FirstAppeal No. 105/2019), 396/2015 (later renumbered as First Appeal No.103/2019), 103/2006 and dated 18.12.2018 in First Appeal DefectiveNos. 349/2015 (later renumbered as First Appeal No. 104/2019), FirstAppeal No. 657/2017, First Appeal Defective Nos. 68/2001, 206/2001,339/2015 (later renumbered as First Appeal No. 108/2019), 345/2015(later renumbered as First Appeal No. 106/2019), 396/2015 (laterrenumbered as First Appeal No. 103/2019), 397/2015 (later renumberedas First Appeal No. 105/2019), 179/2016 and dated 09.12.2021 in FirstAppeal No. 104/2019.
Sourav Roy, Kaushal Sharma, Prabudh Singh, Advs. for theAppellant.
Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Raj Narayan Tewari, Kamal Kant Tewari,Suraj Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612SUPREME COURT REPORTS
AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in respective First Appeals No.657 of 2017 andBother allied First Appeals by which after condoning the delay of 22 yearsin preferring the respective first appeals, the High Court has enhancedthe amount of compensation for the lands acquired to Rs.149 per sq.yard,the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) has preferredthe present appeals.
C
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (NOIDA)has vehemently submitted that there was a huge delay of 22 years inpreferring the appeals by the land owners, which ought not to have beencondoned by the High Court.
2.1 In the alternative, it is submitted that in any case the acquiringDbody – NOIDA shall not be saddled with the liability to pay the statutorybenefits and the interest for 22 years, as it would cause financial burdenupon the NOIDA and it may affect the project cost.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners havesubmitted that as such the land owners shall be entitled to compensationEat Rs.297/- per sq.yard as determined by this Hon’ble Court in the caseof Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. Vs. New OKHLA IndustrialDevelopment Authority and another decided on 26.9.2018 in CivilAppeal No. 10013 of 2018.
3.1 It is submitted that in any case when it has been found that theFland owners shall be entitled to compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yardconsidering the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of New OkhlaIndustrial Development Authority (NOIDA) VS. Deo Karan &Ors. decided on 01.05.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4879 of 2018 andwhen the same was with respect to the acquisition of the year 1982 andthe land owners are entitled to just compensation, no error has beenGcommitted by the High Court in entertaining the application for condoningthe delay in preferring the appeals and awarding the compensation atpar with other land owners whose lands came to be acquired in the year1982.
H
4. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.
5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present casethe Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894was issued on 05.01.1982. The Reference Court determined thecompensation at Rs.20/- per sq.yard by impugned judgment dated15.12.1993. After a period of 22 years the land owners preferred thepresent appeals before the High Court. By the impugned commonjudgment and order the High Court after condoning the delay of 22 yearsin preferring the appeals has enhanced the amount of compensation toRs.149/- per sq.yard at par with the land owners in the case of DeoKaran & Ors. (supra) by which this Court with respect to the acquisitionof the year 1982 determined the compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard.Therefore, in the present case the land owners shall be entitled tocompensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard at par with other land ownerswhose lands were acquired in the year 1982. It cannot be disputed thatthe land owners, whose lands have been acquired under the provisionsof Land Acquisition Act, 1984, are entitled to a reasonable and justcompensation at par with the other similarly situated land owners.
5.1 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the land ownersthat they shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- persq.yard relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nanak(Deceased) through LRS. (supra) is concerned, at the outset it isrequired to be noted that as such the land owners have not preferred theappeals before this Court. It is the NOIDA who has preferred the presentappeals. Under the circumstances in the appeals preferred by the NOIDAquestioning the determination of the compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard,the land owners cannot be permitted to say that they are entitled to theenhanced amount of compensation over and above Rs.149/- per sq.yard.So far as the land owners are concerned, the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court determining and/or awarding thecompensation of Rs.149/- per sq.yard has attained the finality.
5.2 Even otherwise as rightly observed by the High Court, theland owners are not entitled to the compensation at Rs.297/- per sq.yardconsidering the decision of this Court in the case of Nanak (Deceased)through LRS. (supra). Nothing was pointed out that how the case ofthe land owners was comparable with that of the case of Nanak AB
C
D
EF
G
H
A(Deceased) through LRS. (supra). On the contrary with respect tothe acquisition of the year 1982, this Hon’ble Court determined thecompensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard in the case of Deo Karan &Ors.(supra).
5.3 However, at the same time the acquiring body and theBbeneficiary of acquisition shall not be saddled with the liability of statutorybenefits and the interest which may be available under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 for the delayed period. In the present case the delay of 22years can be said to be a substantial delay. However, as the claimantsare held to be entitled the enhanced amount of compensation, in thefacts and circumstances of the case, the High Court can be said to beCjustified in condoning the delay. However, at the same time, the HighCourt has erred in awarding other statutory benefits and interest for thedelayed period. To saddle with the liability to pay statutory benefits andinterest for the delayed period upon the beneficiary/acquiring body wouldbe a financial burden upon the public body and it may increase the projectDcost which shall be against the public interests. It cannot be disputedthat the liability towards the statutory benefits and the interest under theAct, 1984 would be a huge liability considering the interest at the rate of15% per annum, solatium, price rise etc. Therefore, while condoning thedelay and enhancing the amount of compensation at par with other landowners, the High Court ought not to have saddled the liability upon theEappellant to pay statutory benefits and the interest payable under theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 for the delayed period. To the aforesaidextent the impugned common judgment and order passed by the HighCourt is required to be modified and the present appeals are required tobe partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.F
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above all theseAppeals Succeed in part. The impugned common judgment and orderpassed by the High Court passed in respective appeals is hereby partlyallowed to the aforesaid extent denying the statutory benefits and theinterest which may be payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forGthe period between the judgment and award passed by the ReferenceCourt i.e. 15.12.1993 till the respective first appeals were filed aftercuring the defects. Meaning thereby the original land owners/claimantsshall not be entitled to any statutory benefits including the interest payableunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced amount of H
NOIDA v. RAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA(DEAD) THR. LEGAL HEIR [M. R. SHAH, J.]
compensation for the period between 15.12.1993 till the respective firstappeals 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 noorder as to costs.
Devika Gujral
Appeals partly allowed.
615A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H