Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

Fair Compensation Must Reflect True Market Value: Supreme Court Sets INR 403 per sq. yd. in NOIDA Land Acquisition Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has delivered a pivotal judgment in the protracted dispute over land compensation in NOIDA, affirming a compensation rate of INR 403 per sq. yd. This decision addresses the conflicting awards given by various courts and aligns the compensation for landowners in the NOIDA acquisition project. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, emphasized the importance of equitable compensation in land acquisitions for industrial development, ensuring fair treatment of landowners while recognizing the developmental goals of the NOIDA authority.

The controversy dates back to January 5, 1991, when the State of Uttar Pradesh/NOIDA initiated land acquisition in Village Chhalera Bangar, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition, aimed at planned industrial development, covered approximately 492 acres. Initially, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarded a compensation rate of INR 110 per sq. yd., based on a sale deed from 1988. Dissatisfied with this rate, landowners sought enhancement, leading to multiple appeals and varying compensation rates across different courts, with the highest being INR 449 per sq. yd. awarded by the Supreme Court in a previous judgment (Bir Singh case).

The Supreme Court noted the inconsistent compensation rates across various judgments and the resultant confusion. Emphasizing the need for uniformity and fairness, the bench stated, "It is imperative to ensure that landowners receive equitable compensation, reflecting the true market value of their acquired land."

The Court applied the principle of guesstimation to arrive at a fair compensation rate, acknowledging the limitations of the available sale exemplars. "Given the absence of direct evidence, we resort to an informed estimation, ensuring that the compensation reflects the land's potential and market conditions," observed Justice Surya Kant.

Recognizing the land's future potential and its strategic location within NOIDA, the Court considered factors like connectivity, proximity to key landmarks, and the area's development trajectory. "The acquired land, situated amidst developed sectors and key amenities, has significant commercial potential, justifying a higher compensation rate," the judgment highlighted.

"The compensation determined should reflect the true market value, ensuring that landowners are justly compensated for their loss," Justice Surya Kant remarked. Justice K.V. Viswanathan added, "Equity demands that similar cases be treated uniformly, avoiding discrepancies that undermine the landowners' rights."

The Supreme Court's decision to standardize the compensation rate at INR 403 per sq. yd. brings a long-awaited resolution to the NOIDA land acquisition dispute. By addressing the inconsistencies and ensuring fair compensation, the judgment reinforces the principles of justice and equity in land acquisition processes. This landmark ruling not only provides clarity for future cases but also underscores the judiciary's role in balancing developmental needs with the rights of landowners.

 

Date of Decision: July 10, 2024

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.

Latest Legal News