NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus OMVIR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 15-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
729
   [2022] 17 S.C.R. 729
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 the
planned development by the NOIDA, vide Notification dated
22.11.1982 – Award of compensation at Rs.30,000/- per bigha –
Reference u/s. 18 by original owner-father of the respondent, raising
objections against the award and claiming enhanced compensation
– Reference dismissed – Review application also dismissed – After
a 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, denied
the interest during the period of delay – On appeal, held:
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 – Applying the law laid
down by this Court in U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad’s case, to the
instant case, the claimants would not be entitled to the same
compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after 5
years from the date of acquisition in the instant case – On facts,
notification u/s. 4 was 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 cannot be the basis – As regards, the
delay of 16/26 years, the High Court while enhancing compensation,
denied the interest for the period of delay thus, no reason to interfere
with the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay –
Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
awarding compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq. yard is unsustainable
and the original claimants would be entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The submissions made on behalf of the appellant
that the High Court has erred in condoning the delay of 16/26
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
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 claimants,
there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High
Court 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 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’s case, 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 1986/1988. However,
subsequently in the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad’s case
and after considering the decision of this Court in the case of
Narendra’s case with respect to the village Makanpur and other
surrounding villages 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’s
case 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 to the instant case, the claimants
would not be entitled to the same compensation as awarded with
respect to the lands acquired after 5 years from the date of
acquisition in the instant case. In the instant 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.