No Collision? Then Why Did You Flee? — Supreme Court Rejects Truck Driver’s Defence, Upholds Full Liability on Insurer Vicarious Liability Must Be Pleaded With Precision — You Can’t Drag Someone Just Because He Was Once Associated with a Company: Gujarat High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Case Against Non-Executive Individual Daughters Can’t Be Sidelined in Ancestral Property: Telangana High Court Dismisses Purchaser’s Appeal, Upholds Partition in Favour of Married Women and Legal Heirs Marriage in Arya Samaj Is Valid If Performed as per Vedic Rites — Certificate Alone Is Not Conclusive Proof: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Cruelty Case Even a Mother-in-Law Can Be an Aggrieved Woman: Allahabad High Court Upholds Right to File Domestic Violence Case Against Daughter-in-Law Exemption Under Minority Cannot Be Invoked to Justify Delay in Appeal: Supreme Court Reverses Kerala High Court in Fatal Accident Claim Innocent Flat Buyers Cannot Be Made to Suffer Due to Institutional Failures: Supreme Court on Tamil Nadu Housing Board Land Dispute Decree Can’t Sleep for 18 Years and Wake Up to Claim Land: Telangana High Court Cancels Mutation Based on 1995 Partition Decree Six Years in Custody, Only Two Witnesses Examined—Incarceration Cannot Continue Indefinitely: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Gratuity Is Not a Bounty—It Is Property Under Article 300A: Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams Delay in Payment to Retired Teacher A Small Degree of Scoliosis Cannot Be Stretched To Deny Appointment:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Appointment Of Constable Despite Medical Board’s Earlier Unfitness Declaration Victim’s Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Has No Substantive Value Without Civil Dispute Dressed as Criminal Offence — You Can’t Use FIRs to Fight Over Ancestral Property: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea for Police Action in Family Property Sale Statement of Co-Accused Can Only Be a Clue, Not the Sole Basis for FIR Quashing: Gujarat High Court Declines to Interfere at Investigation Stage Right to Fair Trial Includes Right to Access Digital Evidence: Delhi High Court Directs Supply of Hard Disk Copy to Accused for Effective Defence Allegations of Affixing Counterfeit Mark Amounts to Cheating Under Illustration (b) of Section 415 IPC: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings Delivery of Cheque to a Third Party Without Authorization Doesn’t Discharge Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms Decree Against L&T Officials

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 News