New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma (Dead) Through Legal Heir

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8331 ­ 8345 OF 2022 NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY …Appellant

Versus

RAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR & ANR. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

common judgment and order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in respective First

Appeals No.657 of 2017 and other allied First Appeals by which

after condoning the delay of 22 years in preferring the

Signature Not Verified respective first appeals, the High Court has enhanced the Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.11.17 17:01:12 IST

amount of compensation for the lands acquired to Rs.149 per Reason:

1

sq.yard, the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

(NOIDA) has preferred the present appeals.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

(NOIDA) has vehemently submitted that there was a huge delay

of 22 years in preferring the appeals by the land owners, which

ought not to have been condoned by the High Court.

2.1 In the alternative, it is submitted that in any case the

acquiring body – NOIDA shall not be saddled with the liability

to pay the statutory benefits and the interest for 22 years, as it

would cause financial burden upon the NOIDA and it may

affect the project cost.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners

have submitted that as such the land owners shall be entitled

to compensation at Rs.297/­ per sq.yard as determined by this

Hon’ble Court in the case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS.

Vs. New OKHLA Industrial Development Authority and

another decided on 26.9.2018 in Civil Appeal No.10013 of

2018.

2 3.1 It is submitted that in any case when it has been found

that the land owners shall be entitled to compensation at

Rs.149/­ per sq.yard considering the decision of this Hon’ble

Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development

Authority (NOIDA) VS. Deo Karan & Ors. decided on

01.05.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4879 of 2018 and when the

same was with respect to the acquisition of the year 1982 and

the land owners are entitled to just compensation, no error has

been committed by the High Court in entertaining the

application for condoning the delay in preferring the appeals

and awarding the compensation at par with other land owners

whose lands came to be acquired in the year 1982.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties

at length.

5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present

case the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 was issued on 05.01.1982. The Reference Court

determined the compensation at Rs.20/­ per sq.yard by

3 impugned judgment dated 15.12.1993. After a period of 22

years the land owners preferred the present appeals before the

High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order the

High Court after condoning the delay of 22 years in preferring

the appeals has enhanced the amount of compensation to

Rs.149/­ per sq.yard at par with the land owners in the case of

Deo Karan & Ors.(supra) by which this Court with respect to

the acquisition of the year 1982 determined the compensation

at Rs.149/­ per sq.yard. Therefore, in the present case the land

owners shall be entitled to compensation at Rs.149/­ per

sq.yard at par with other land owners whose lands were

acquired in the year 1982. It cannot be disputed that the land

owners, whose lands have been acquired under the provisions

of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, are entitled to a reasonable and

just compensation at par with the other similarly situated land

owners.

5.1 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the land owners

that they shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of

Rs.297/­ per sq.yard relying upon the decision of this Court in

4 the case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. (supra) is

concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such

the land owners have not preferred the appeals before this

Court. It is the NOIDA who has preferred the present appeals.

Under the circumstances in the appeals preferred by the NOIDA

questioning the determination of the compensation at Rs.149/­

per sq.yard, the land owners cannot be permitted to say that

they are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation over

and above Rs.149/­ per sq.yard. So far as the land owners are

concerned, the impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court determining and/or awarding the compensation of

Rs.149/­ per sq.yard has attained the finality.

5.2 Even otherwise as rightly observed by the High Court, the

land owners are not entitled to the compensation at Rs.297/­

per sq.yard considering the decision of this Court in the case of

Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. (supra). Nothing was pointed

out that how the case of the land owners was comparable with

that of the case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. (supra).

On the contrary with respect to the acquisition of the year

5 1982, this Hon’ble Court determined the compensation 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 the

beneficiary of acquisition shall not be saddled with the liability

of statutory benefits and the interest which may be available

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the delayed period. In

the present case the delay of 22 years can be said to be a

substantial delay. However, as the claimants are held to be

entitled the enhanced amount of compensation, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the High Court can be said to be

justified in condoning the delay. However, at the same time,

the High Court has erred in awarding other statutory benefits

and interest for the delayed period. To saddle with the liability

to pay statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period

upon the beneficiary/acquiring body would be a financial

burden upon the public body and it may increase the project

cost which shall be against the public interests. It cannot be

disputed that the liability towards the statutory benefits and

the interest under the Act, 1984 would be a huge liability

6 considering the interest at the rate of 15% per annum,

solatium, price rise etc. Therefore, while condoning the delay

and enhancing the amount of compensation at par with other

land owners, the High Court ought not to have saddled the

liability upon the appellant to pay statutory benefits and the

interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the

delayed period. To the aforesaid extent the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be

modified and the present appeals are required to be partly

allowed to the aforesaid extent.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above all

these Appeals Succeed in part. The impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court passed in

respective appeals is hereby partly allowed to the aforesaid

extent denying the statutory benefits and the interest which

may be payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the

period between the judgment and award passed by the

Reference Court i.e. 15.12.1993 till the respective first appeals

were filed after curing the defects. Meaning thereby the original

7 land owners/claimants shall not be entitled to any statutory

benefits including the interest payable under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced amount of

compensation for the period between 15.12.1993 till the

respective first appeals 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 no order as to costs.

…………………………..J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………...J. (M.M. SUNDRESH) New Delhi;

November 17, 2022.

8