LexNARENDRA & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H (2017] l 1 S.C.R. 540 NARENDRA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. I 0429-l 0430of2017) SEPTEMBER 11 . 2017 [A. K. SIKIU AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4(1), 6(1) and 28 - Fair compensation - Grant of- land uf the appellants acquired by the State - land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.50 per sq. yds. - Unsatisfied with the value determined, appe//ams as well as other villagers sought reference u/s.18 of the Act -District Judge increased the rate of compensation 10 Rs. 90 per sq. yd,, - Unsatisfied with increase in compensalion, appeals were filed - Appellants claimed that compensation be enhanced to Rs.115 per sq. yds. and some other land owners i/owever. claimed higher compensation - High Court found merit in the appeals filed by the others and raised compensation at the raze of Rs.297 per S<f. yds. - Howeve1; the High Court limited the compensation to Rs. I 15 per sq. yd,. of zhe present appellants because the appellants had demanded compensation at that rate only and had paid the court fees accordingly - On appeal, held: The mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of 1he villagers was al lesser rate than lhe compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should no/ be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fÂŁ1ir compensalion on the grottn<I that 1he.v c/ain11.!<l co111pensativ11 at a lesser rate - Jn such cases. s1rict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering s11bsta11tial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideratio11 - Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all land owners whose land was taken away by the same Notijicalion should become the beneficiary thereof- Not only it is an (l.lpect of good governance, j(1iling lo do so would ulso amount to discrimination h_v giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated - On technical ground,, like the one adopted hy the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied lo them - Simply because the appellants had paid 540 NARENDRA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 541 court fee on the claim at the rate of Rs.115/- sq. yds. could not be A the reason to deny the compensation at a higher rate - Appellants directed to pay the difference in court fee after calculating the same at the rate of Rs.2971- per sq. yds. - Judgment of the High Court set aside. Administration of Justice - Justice delivetJ' system - Social B Justice - Discussed. T'Vi>rds and Phrases - 'Reflective Equilibrium' - Discussed. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The purpose and objective behind the s.28, Land C Acquisition Act, 1894 is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those land owners who arc agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is ac<1uircd for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. D It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the Legislature. The mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some or the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons E appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings arc not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition or lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets F acquired arc not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell of their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation G should he paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Scheme further provides that his detcrmina.tion is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court etc. Jn order to ensure that th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.