New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs Omvir Singh

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9085 of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.9558 of 2020) (@ Diary No.16450 of 2020)

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority …Appellant

Versus

Omvir Singh & Ors. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the High Court Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan

of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Defective No.308 of Date: 2022.12.15 18:15:16 IST Reason:

2015, by which the High Court has rejected the said appeal after 1 a period of approximately 16 years (as per the appellant, there

was a delay of 26 years) by which the High Court has enhanced

the compensation payable to the land owners to Rs.297/­ per

sq.yard, NOIDA has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell, are as

under:

2.1 That the land in question situated in Village Gheja

Tilapatabad, Tehsil and Pargana Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now

District Gautam Budh Nagar) was acquired for the planned

development by the NOIDA, vide Notification issued under Section

4, dated 22.11.1982. A declaration under the provisions of

Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on

23.11.1982. The possession of the acquired land was taken over

by the State on 22.02.1983. The Land Acquisition

Officer/Collector declared the Award dated 05.09.1983 and

awarded/determined the compensation at Rs.30,000/­ per bigha,

relying upon the sale deed dated 02.11.1982 of certain parcels of

land in the village itself. The father of the contesting respondents

2 accepted the compensation. At the instance of the original

owners – father of the contesting respondents, a Reference under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 raising objections

against the Award was 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 other references. Review

applications were filed which came to be dismissed in the year

1998. That after a period of 16 years from the date of rejection of

the review applications in the year 2014/2015, the respondents

filed the present first appeal before the High Court and relied

upon the judgment in some other first appeals by which the

compensation was enhanced to Rs.297/­ per sq.yard. By the

impugned judgment and order, the High Court has condoned the

delay of 16 years, however it has denied the interest during the

period of delay, and has enhanced the amount of compensation to

Rs.297/­ per yard. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of

the NOIDA.

3

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the NOIDA has

vehemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred in

entertaining the appeal after a period of 16 years from the date of

dismissal of the review application and after a period of 26 years

from the date of the decision by the Reference Court.

3.1 It is submitted that even otherwise, on merits also in view of

the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Asha Ram

(Dead) through LRs and Others vs. U.P. Awas Avam Vikas

Parishad and Another, (2022) 2 SCC 567 with respect to the

land acquisition of 1982, this Hon’ble Court has reduced the

amount of compensation to Rs.120/­ per sq.yard, the claimants

shall not be entitled to compensation at 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

the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad (supra), this Court

did consider its earlier decision in the case of Narendra and

Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2017) 9 SCC

4 426, by which this Court for the acquisition with respect to the

nearby villages of the year 1988, has allowed compensation @

Rs.297/­ per sq.yard. However, it is submitted that considering

the development which took place between the year 1982­

1986/1988 this Court in the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas

Parishad (supra), did not accept the case on behalf of the

claimants for awarding Rs.297/­ per sq.yard and determined the

compensation for the lands acquired in the year 1982, at

Rs.120/­ per sq.yard.

4. While opposing the present appeal, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently

submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

High Court has not committed any error in condoning the delay of

16/26 years by observing that the claimants are entitled to just

compensation.

4.1 It is submitted that considering the case of the other land

owners decided vide judgment and order passed in the year 2014

with respect to similar acquisition with respect to the nearby

5 villages, the amount of compensation had been enhanced to

Rs.297/­ per sq.yard. Following the same, in the present case

the amount of compensation has been awarded @ Rs.297/­ per

sq.yard, which cannot be said to be unreasonable and the High

Court has not committed any error.

4.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

claimants has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the

High Court, confirmed by this Court by which the compensation

has been determined at Rs.297/­ per sq.yard.

INDEX PARTICULARS LIST OF JUDGMENTS OF LAND ACQUISITION IN MAKANPUR VILLAGE Sl. Village Date of Judgment of the Page No. Notifications Court Nos.

& Compensatio n (per sq. yd.)

1. Makanpur, 12.09.1986/ F.A. No. 910/2000 6­26 (Vaishali) 28.02.1987 in re: GDA v. Kashi Distt. Ram. [DoJ:

Ghaziabad, [Rs. 297/­] 13.11.2014].

Tehsil Dadri 27­32 SLP (C) No. 5815 of 2015, GDA v. Kashi Ram & Ors.

6 dismissed on 05.05.2015 33­34

Review Petition (C) No. 2632 of 2015 dismissed on 35­37 06.10.2015

Curative Petition (C) No. 94 of 2016 was dismissed on 15.03.2016

2. Makanpur, 15.03.1988 Judgment dt. 38­95 (Sector 62, 15.04.2015 of the Noida) Distt. [Rs. 297/­] High Court in F.A. Gautam No. 737 in re: Budh Nagar, NOIDA v. Surendra Tehsil Dadri Singh, awarding compensation @ Rs. 135/­ for Makanpur, was set­aside by this Court vide judgment dt. 16.02.2016, rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1506­ 1517 of 2016 in re: 96­98 Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P., reported as (2016) 6 SCC 308 and the case was remanded for consideration 99­124 afresh.

Pursuant to remand, the High Court dismissed F.A. No. 737 in re: NOIDA v. Surendra Singh

7 along with other First Appeals of Noida and allowed the First Appeals filed by the farmers (F.A. No. 522 of 2009 Pradeep Kumar vs. State of UP, being the lead case) and awarded compensation of Rs. 297 per sq. yd. vide final judgment dt. 21.04.2016. This has attained finality.

[Note: In the present bunch of cases, listed before this Court, the compensation has been awarded @ Rs. 297/­ sq. yard based on this judgment dated 21.04.2016 only as they pertain to the same notification and the same village (Makanpur) and have arisen out of the same Reference Court order.]

3. Makanpur, 12.09.1986/ This Court in Civil 125­ (Vaishali) 24.02.1988 Appeal No. 10429­ 135 Distt. 10430 of 2017, Ghaziabad, [Rs. 297/­] Narendra vs. State Tehsil Dadri of UP, reported as

8 (2017) 9 SCC 426 has awarded compensation @ Rs. 297/­

4. Makanpur, 16.08.1988 This Court in Civil 136­ (Indirapuram Appeal No. 16960 of 137 ) Distt. [Rs. 297/­] 2017, Jaiprakash Ghaziabad, (D) V State of U.P. Tehsil Dadri vide judgment dated 24.11.2017, reported as (2020) 11 SCC 770, increased compensation to Rs. 297/­ (Followed In re: Narendra)

5. Makanpur, 16.08.1988 This Hon’ble Court in (Indirapuram Civil Appeal No. ) Distt. [Rs. 297/­] 16961 of 2017, Om Ghaziabad, Prakash vs. State of Tehsil Dadri UP vide the same judgment dated 24.10.2017 in Jai Prakash (supra) increased the compensation to Rs. 297/­

6. Makanpur, 12.09.1986/ This case had also (Vaishali) 28.02.1987 arisen out of the Distt. above­mentioned Ghaziabad, [Rs. 297/­] Kashi Ram Tehsil Dadri judgment (supra). After the judgment in Kashi Ram, an application bearing CMAN no. 194412 of

9 2016 was filed in one of the First Appeals bearing FA No. 484 of 2019, Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Trilok Chand & Ors., which was also decided along with the bunch of Kashi Ram (supra) for 33% deduction as development charges from the compensation determined at the 138­ rate of Rs. 297/­ sq. 139 yard, but the same was rejected.

SLP bearing SLP (C) No. 12547/2017, Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Trilok Chand & Ors was filed against the said dismissal, wherein while issuing notice, vide order dated 28.04.2017, it was especially recorded 140­ that the GDA was aggrieved by the non­ 141 deduction of 33% as development charges.

However, the said SLP was dismissed vide order dated

10 03.08.2017.

7. Makanpur, 16.08.1988 This Court in Civil 142­ (Indirapuram Appeal No. 9208­ 144 ) Distt. [Rs. 297/­] 9211 of 2018, Ghaziabad, Mangu Singh Vs. Tehsil Dadri State of UP, vide judgment dated 10.09.2018, increased compensation to Rs. 297/­.

Making the above submissions and relying upon the above

decisions/orders passed by the High Court as well as this Court,

it is prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length.

5.1 So far as the submissions made on behalf of the appellant

that the High Court has erred in condoning the delay of 16/26

years in preferring the appeal is concerned, in the peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that even

while enhancing the amount of compensation and entertaining

the appeal, the High Court has denied the interest for the period

of delay and has exercised its discretion in favour of the

11 claimants, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by

the High Court condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.

5.2 Now so far as merits of the appeal and the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court enhancing the

amount of compensation at Rs.297/­ per sq.yard is concerned

and the reliance placed upon the decisions of the High Court and

this Court referred to hereinabove and relied upon on behalf of

the claimants is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted

that in the present case, the acquisition is of the year 1982 and in

all other relied upon cases the acquisition(s) is/are of the year

1986/88. In all those cases, where the amount of compensation

has been determined @ Rs.297/­ per sq.yard, the acquisition(s)

is/are of the years 1986/1988 with respect to the Village

Makanpur and other nearby villages acquired for the development

of NOIDA/Ghaziabad. In the case of Narendra & Ors. (supra),

this Court had enhanced the amount of compensation to

Rs.297/­ per sq.yard with respect to the land acquired in Village

Makanpur and other surrounding villages acquired for the very

same project, but with respect to the acquisition of the years

12 1986/1988. However, subsequently in the case of U.P. Awas

Avam Vikas Parishad (supra) and after considering the decision

of this Court in the case of Narendra & Ors. (supra) with respect

to the village Makanpur and other surrounding villages situated

at Village Prahladgarh, Village Jhandapur, Village Sahibabad,

Village Arthala with respect to the acquisition of the year 1982,

this Court has determined the compensation at Rs.120/­ per

sq.yard. In the said decision, while refusing to accept the claim of

Rs.297/­ per sq.yard as awarded in the case of Narendra & Ors.

(supra) which was with respect to the acquisition of 1988, this

Court has observed that the compensation determined on the

basis of the Notification 5 years later, cannot be a yardstick for

determining the compensation for the land which is acquired five

years before. This Court has also taken note of the fact that

between the year 1982 and 1987/1988, development activities

had been undertaken. Applying the law laid down by this Court

in the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad (supra) to the

present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the same

compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after

13 5 years from the date of acquisition in the present case. As

observed hereinabove, in the present case, Section 4 Notification

had been issued on 22.11.1982 and the relied upon decisions

with respect to Village Makanpur and other villages are of the

year 1986/88, which as observed by this Court in the aforesaid

decision in the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad (supra),

cannot be the basis. Under the above circumstances, the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

awarding compensation @ Rs.297/­ per sq.yard is unsustainable

and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to

compensation at the rate of Rs.120/­ per sq.yard.

6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the

present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court is hereby modified. It is ordered

and directed that the original claimants shall be entitled to

compensation at the rate of Rs.120/­ per sq.yard along with all

other statutory benefits and interest allowable under the

provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the claimants

shall not be entitled to the statutory benefits including the

14 interest under the Act, 1894 on the enhanced amount of

compensation for the delayed period in preferring the appeal

before the High Court i.e. from the date of rejection of the review

application till the first appeal was filed before the High Court.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

No costs.

…………………………..J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………...J. (HIMA KOHLI) NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 15, 2022.

15