DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
23/09/2021.
CORAM:
- Hon’ble Justice MR Shah
- Hon’ble Justice AS Bopanna
PARTIES:
- Appellants: Ajai Pal Singh and others
- Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
SUBJECT
- An appeal was filed seeking enhancement of compensation for land acquired by the NOIDA authority pursuant to a notification issued in 1976. The High Court of Allahabad made a mistake of inclusion of the appeal relating to the land acquired in 1977 and the fixation of the value of it to that of an acquisition in 1991.
- The Bench rejected the contention that the appellants were entitled to the benefits of a judgment rendered in the context of a land acquisition in 1991, when appeals involved land acquired in 1977.The Supreme Court has observed that a party cannot take benefit of an inadvertent mistake committed by a court while passing an order.
OVERVIEW
- On April 30, 1976 a notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued proposing to acquire 589 bigha of land for the purpose of establishing an industrial development authority in the area under jurisdiction of NOIDA.
- On March 28, 1977, the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued an award for compensation to the landowners. The amount of compensation offered was fixed at Rs.2.38 per sq yard. A reference was made to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act to enhance the compensation for the landowners.
- The landowners claimed that they should be compensated at the rate of Rs.10 per square yard. After considering the record, the Reference Court increased the compensation to over Rs.4 per square yard. The landowners had been dissatisfied with the order passed by the Reference Court and approached the High Court that passed a common judgment to dispose of the appeals.
- One of the appeals relating to an acquisition that happened in 1977 got inadvertently tagged with the 1992 acquisitions. The High Court, with common order, also 'mechanically' enhanced the land value of the 1977 acquisition.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
- Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - It provides for publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.
- Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Any individual who has not acknowledged the award may, by a composed application to the authority, necessitate that the matter is alluded by the collector for the assurance of the court, regardless of whether it is to the estimation of the land, the measure of the pay, the people to whom it is payable, or the distribution of the compensation.
ISSUE
Can compensation determined for the lands acquired subsequently be comparable at all?
ANALYSIS
- The Supreme Court has held that no one can take advantage of the mistake made by the High Court where error has occurred without noticing the peculiar facts. Nobody can take advantage of the mistake that has been made by the Court or any other person. It is the duty of the advocate to point out the erroneous facts.
- The NOIDA authority has also filed a review petition after it was discovered that its mistake was made. Keeping in mind this, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments made by the appellants on the HC judgment.
- The Supreme Court also observed that while determining the value of land, the compensation awarded to another land that was acquired subsequently cannot be taken into consideration.
- The court noted that the compensation awarded for the lands acquired in 1983 cannot be considered comparable to the compensation given for acquisition in the future.
- The compensation that was received for the lands acquired following the acquisition can't be compared to the compensation received for the same lands when they were acquired. This is because the compensation for the acquired lands was never equal or comparable to the compensation received for the land that was acquired after 1980, due to the development that had taken place since then. The court rejected the request of appellants.
CONCLUSION
As per the settled law, the compensation that was given to the land owners following the acquisition of the properties is not comparable to what was given to them when they were purchased. This is because, in 1976, there was no development on the lands acquired. Hence, the appellants failed to argue that the market value for their lands were not properly determined.The Bench modified the judgment of the High Court and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 28.12 per square yard, thereby partly allowing the appeals.The claimants are entitled to the statutory benefits that are available to them under the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced amount of compensation.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Hope you enjoyed reading this judgement. Here are a few questions for you, let us know your answers in the comments section-
- Which section of the Land Acquisition Act talks about publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon?
- Can compensation determined for the lands acquired subsequently be comparable at all?
