NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus OMVIR SINGH & ORS. on 15 December 2022

[2022] 17 S.C.R. 729

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

v.

OMVIR SINGH & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 9085 of 2022)

DECEMBER 15, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 4, 6, 18 – Land acquisition –Enhancement of compensation – Land in question acquired for theplanned development by the NOIDA, vide Notification dated22.11.1982 – Award of compensation at Rs.30,000/- per bigha –Reference u/s. 18 by original owner-father of the respondent, raisingobjections against the award and claiming enhanced compensation– Reference dismissed – Review application also dismissed – Aftera period of 16 years, from the date of rejection of review applications,the respondent filed an appeal – High Court while condoning delay,enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per sq. yard, however, deniedthe interest during the period of delay – On appeal, held:Compensation determined on the basis of the Notification 5 yearslater, cannot be a yardstick for determining the compensation forthe land which is acquired five years before – Applying the law laiddown by this Court in U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad’s case, to theinstant case, the claimants would not be entitled to the samecompensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after 5years from the date of acquisition in the instant case – On facts,notification u/s. 4 was issued on 22.11.1982 and the relied upondecisions with respect to Village Makanpur and other villages areof the year 1986/88, which cannot be the basis – As regards, thedelay of 16/26 years, the High Court while enhancing compensation,denied the interest for the period of delay thus, no reason to interferewith the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay –Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Courtawarding compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq. yard is unsustainableand the original claimants would be entitled to compensation at therate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The submissions made on behalf of the appellantthat the High Court has erred in condoning the delay of 16/26

729

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ayears in preferring the appeal is concerned, in the peculiar factsand circumstances of the case and considering the fact that evenwhile enhancing the amount of compensation and entertainingthe appeal, the High Court has denied the interest for the periodof delay and has exercised its discretion in favour of the claimants,there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the HighBCourt condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. [Para 5.1][736-H; 737-A-B]

1.2 The acquisition is of the year 1982 and in all other reliedupon cases the acquisition(s) is/are of the year 1986/88. In allthose cases, where the amount of compensation has beenCdetermined @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard, the acquisition(s) is/are ofthe years 1986/1988 with respect to the Village Makanpur andother nearby villages acquired for the development of NOIDA/Ghaziabad. In the case of Narendra’s case, this Court hadenhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.297/- per sq.yardDwith respect to the land acquired in Village Makanpur and othersurrounding villages acquired for the very same project, but withrespect to the acquisition of the years 1986/1988. However,subsequently in the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad’s caseand after considering the decision of this Court in the case ofNarendra’s case with respect to the village Makanpur and otherEsurrounding villages with respect to the acquisition of the year1982, this Court has determined the compensation at Rs.120/-per sq.yard. In the said decision, while refusing to accept theclaim of Rs.297/- per sq.yard as awarded in the case of Narendra’scase which was with respect to the acquisition of 1988, this Court

Conclusion

Fhas observed that the compensation determined on the basis ofthe Notification 5 years later, cannot be a yardstick for determiningthe compensation for the land which is acquired five years before.This Court has also taken note of the fact that between the year1982 and 1987/1988, development activities had been undertaken. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the caseGof U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad to the instant case, the claimantswould not be entitled to the same compensation as awarded withrespect to the lands acquired after 5 years from the date ofacquisition in the instant case. In the instant case, Section 4Notification had been issued on 22.11.1982 and the relied uponH

OMVIR SINGH & ORS.

decisions with respect to Village Makanpur and other villagesare of the year 1986/88, which as observed by this Court in thesaid decision in the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad’s case,cannot be the basis. Under the above circumstances, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court awardingcompensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard is unsustainable and it isheld that the original claimants would be entitled to compensationat the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard. [Para 5.2][737-B-H; 738-A-B]

1.3 The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt is modified. It is ordered and directed that the originalclaimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard along with all other statutory benefits and interestallowable under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.However, the claimants would not be entitled to the statutorybenefits including the interest under the Act, 1894 on theenhanced amount of compensation for the delayed period inpreferring the appeal before the High Court i.e. from the date ofrejection of the review application till the first appeal was filedbefore the High Court. [Para 6][738-C-D]

Asha Ram (Dead) through LRs and Others vs. U.P. AwasAvam Vikas Parishad and Another (2022) 2 SCC 567 –relied on.

Narendra and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh andOthers (2017) 9 SCC 426 : [2017] 11 SCR 540 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2017] 11 SCR 540referred toPara 3.2(2022) 2 SCC 567relied onPara 5.2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9085of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2020 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Defective No.308 of 2015.

Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AAG, Ravindra Kumar, RanjiThomas, Yatindra Singh, Pradeep Kant, Sr. Advs., Binay Kumar Das,Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Neha Das, Ajai Kumar, Abhay Kumar Tayal, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AMs. Manvi Dikshit Sharma, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad,Haraprasad Sahu, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Ajit Singh Pundir, D. V.Singh, Arijeet Singh, Ms. Shanti Swaroop Singh, Sourav Roy, KaushalSharma, Prabudh Singh, Vishal Malik, Rajnish Kumar Jha, ChandanKumar, Vimal Johnson Kerketta, Ms. Sushma, Ms. Monika, Ms. BabilaK. K., Ms. Saloni Saran, Mahesh Kr. Tiwari, Bishnu Prasad Tiwari,BKumar Rajeev, Ashutosh Sharma, Ms. Gunjan Sharma, Mahendra Kumar,Ram Sajjan Mishra, Ms. Swati Jain, R. K. Bali, Ms. Meghna Bali,Deepkaran Dalal, Anil Kaushik, Rajat Rana, Ms. Anju Kaushik, Ms.Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma, M. R. Shamshad,Mohd Waquas, Arijit Sarkar, Ms. Nabeela Jamil, Saleem Khan, SurendraCKr. Gupta, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, K. S. Rana, Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms.Reeta Chaudhary, Aneesh Mittal, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Akhilesh Kalra,Rohit Kumar Singh, Harsh Jain, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Shubham Kumar,Ms. Rani Mishra, Chiranjeev Johri, Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Ganga SagarSingh, Ashish Kumar Chaurosiya, Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, AnuragNagar, Advs. for the appearing parties.D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the High Court of Judicature atEAllahabad in First Appeal Defective No.308 of 2015, by which the HighCourt has rejected the said appeal after a period of approximately 16years (as per the appellant, there was a delay of 26 years) by which theHigh Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the land ownersto Rs.297/- per sq.yard, NOIDA has preferred the present appeal.F2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell, are asunder:

2.1 That the land in question situated in Village Gheja Tilapatabad,Tehsil and Pargana Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now District Gautam BudhNagar) was acquired for the planned development by the NOIDA, videGNotification issued under Section 4, dated 22.11.1982. A declaration underthe provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issuedon 23.11.1982. The possession of the acquired land was taken over bythe State on 22.02.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer/Collector declaredthe Award dated 05.09.1983 and awarded/determined the compensationat Rs.30,000/- per bigha, relying upon the sale deed dated 02.11.1982 ofH

certain parcels of land in the village itself. The father of the contestingrespondents accepted the compensation. At the instance of the originalowners – father of the contesting respondents, a Reference under Section18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 raising objections against the Awardwas 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 otherreferences. Review applications were filed which came to be dismissedin the year 1998. That after a period of 16 years from the date of rejectionof the review applications in the year 2014/2015,the respondents filedthe present first appeal before the High Court and relied upon thejudgment in some other first appeals by which the compensation wasenhanced to Rs.297/- per sq.yard. By the impugned judgment and order,the High Court has condoned the delay of 16 years, however it hasdenied the interest during the period of delay, and has enhanced theamount of compensation to Rs.297/- per yard. Hence, the present appealat the instance of the NOIDA.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the NOIDA hasvehemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred inentertaining the appeal after a period of 16 years from the date of dismissalof the review application and after a period of 26 years from the date ofthe decision by the Reference Court.

3.1 It is submitted that even otherwise, on merits also in view ofthe subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Asha Ram (Dead)through LRs and Others vs. U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad andAnother, (2022) 2 SCC 567 with respect to the land acquisition of1982,this Hon’ble Court has reduced the amount of compensation toRs.120/- per sq.yard, the claimants shall not be entitled to compensationat 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 thecase of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad (supra), this Court didconsider its earlier decision in the case of Narendra and Others vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 426, by whichthis Court for the acquisition with respect to the nearby villages of theyear 1988, has allowed compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard. However,it is submitted that considering the development which took place betweenthe year 1982-1986/1988 this Court in the case of U.P. Awas AvamVikas Parishad (supra), did not accept the case on behalf of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aclaimants for awarding Rs.297/-per sq.yard and determined thecompensation for the lands acquired in the year 1982, at Rs.120/- persq.yard.

4. While opposing the present appeal, learned counsel appearingon behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that in theBfacts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has not committedany error in condoning the delay of 16/26 years by observing that theclaimants are entitled tojust compensation.

4.1 It is submitted that considering the case of the other landowners decided vide judgment and order passed in the year 2014 withCrespect to similar acquisition with respect to the nearby villages, theamount of compensation had been enhanced to Rs.297/- per sq.yard.Following the same, in the present case the amount of compensation hasbeen awarded @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard,which cannot be said to beunreasonable and the High Court has not committed any error.

D4.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimantshas heavily relied upon the following decisions of the High Court,confirmed by this Court by which the compensation has been determinedat Rs.297/- per sq.yard.

INDEX

E

F

G

H

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.OMVIR SINGH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

735ABCDEFGH

ABCDEF

Making the above submissions and relying upon the aboveGdecisions/orders passed by the High Court as well as this Court, it isprayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length.

5.1 So far as the submissions made on behalf of the appellant thatHthe High Court has erred in condoning the delay of 16/26 years in preferring the appeal is concerned, in the peculiar facts and circumstancesof the case and considering the fact that even while enhancing the amountof compensation and entertaining the appeal, the High Court has deniedthe interest for the period of delay and has exercised its discretion infavour of the claimants, we see no reason to interfere with the orderpassed by the High Court condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.

5.2 Now so far as merits of the appeal and the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court enhancing the amount of compensationat Rs.297/- per sq.yard is concerned and the reliance placed upon thedecisions of the High Court and this Court referred to hereinabove andrelied upon on behalf of the claimants is concerned, at the outset it isrequired to be noted that in the present case, the acquisition is of theyear 1982 and in all other relied upon cases the acquisition(s) is/are ofthe year 1986/88. In all those cases, where the amount of compensationhas been determined @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard, the acquisition(s)is/are ofthe years 1986/1988 with respect to the Village Makanpur and othernearby villages acquired for the development of NOIDA/Ghaziabad. Inthe case of Narendra & Ors. (supra), this Court had enhanced theamount of compensation to Rs.297/- per sq.yard with respect to the landacquired in Village Makanpur and other surrounding villages acquiredfor the very same project, but with respect to the acquisition ofthe years1986/1988. However, subsequently in the case of U.P. Awas AvamVikas Parishad (supra) and after considering the decision of this Courtin the case of Narendra & Ors. (supra) with respect to the villageMakanpur and other surrounding villages situated at Village Prahladgarh,Village Jhandapur, Village Sahibabad, Village Arthala with respect to theacquisition of the year 1982,this Court has determined the compensationat Rs.120/- per sq.yard. In the said decision, while refusing to accepttheclaim of Rs.297/- per sq.yard as awarded in the case of Narendra& Ors. (supra) which was with respect to the acquisition of 1988, thisCourt has observed that the compensation determined on the basis ofthe Notification 5 years later, cannot be a yardstick for determiningthecompensation for the land which is acquired five years before. ThisCourt has also taken note of the fact that between the year 1982 and1987/1988, development activities had been undertaken. Applying thelaw laid down by this Court in the case of U.P. Awas Avam VikasParishad (supra) to the present case, the claimants shall not be entitledto the same compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquiredafter 5 years from the date of acquisition in the present case. As observed AB

D

E

F

G

H

Ahereinabove, in the present case, Section 4 Notification had been issuedon 22.11.1982 and the relied upon decisions with respect to VillageMakanpur and other villages are of the year 1986/88, which as observedby this Court in the aforesaid decision in the case of U.P. Awas AvamVikas Parishad (supra),cannot be the basis. Under the abovecircumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighBCourt awarding compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard is unsustainableand it is heldthat the original claimants shall be entitled to compensationat the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard.

6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the presentappeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed byCthe High Court is hereby modified. It is ordered and directed that theoriginal claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard along with all other statutory benefits and interest allowableunder the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, theclaimants shall not be entitled to the statutory benefits including the interestDunder the Act, 1894 on the enhanced amount of compensation for thedelayed period in preferring the appeal before the High Court i.e. fromthe date of rejection of the review application till the first appeal wasfiled before the High Court.