Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Land Acquisition Compensation Delayed for Two Decades: Supreme Court Stresses Timely and Just Compensation in Land Acquisition Cases

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


"The irony in all these cases is that the appellants are land losers who have been divested from their land either fully or in part to construct an Express Highway over such land for the benefit of others to travel fast but the process to compensate them with a just and fair quantum of money instead of being on the fast track, has been tardy."  Supreme Court.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for timely and fair compensation in land acquisition cases, highlighting the plight of landowners who had been divested of their land for the construction of an Express Highway. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, highlighted the delay in the compensation process, with the affected landowners waiting for almost two decades to receive what is rightfully due to them.

The judgment, which pertained to multiple appeals arising out of the acquisition of land in Haryana, highlighted the irony of landowners losing their land for the benefit of constructing an Express Highway, while the compensation process remained sluggish. The Court noted, "It is a couple of years short of two decades from the date of the preliminary notification, and the appellants are still litigating to receive what is rightfully due to them."

The appeals had a chequered history, with the lands of the appellants being part of the lands notified for acquisition in 2005. After a lengthy legal battle, the Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 22,00,754 per acre. However, the High Court modified the judgment and reduced the market value to Rs. 14,52,010 per acre.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the determination of market value and observed that the High Court had unjustifiably relied solely on a circular providing floor rates, ignoring other evidence available on record. The Court emphasized the importance of considering sale exemplars in determining market value, particularly when dealing with smaller extents of land with non-agricultural potential within urban areas. Quoting previous judgments, the Court clarified that the sale exemplars must be comparable and relevant to the specific case at hand.

The judgment also addressed the deduction of development charges. The Court noted that the lands were acquired for the construction of a new Expressway, which required various amenities and urban development. Therefore, a deduction of 25% towards development charges was deemed appropriate.

Regarding the issue of excess compensation received by some landowners, the Court invoked the principle of 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' and allowed the recovery of the excess amount. However, to mitigate the impact on the landowners, the Court ordered that the refund be made in three half-yearly installments, free of interest. If the amount is not refunded within the specified time period, interest at a rate of 9% per annum would be applicable.

The Supreme Court, in its final determination, set the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 25,20,000 per acre. The appellants were granted statutory benefits and entitled to receive compensation accordingly.

Date of Decision: February 15, 2023

Ravinder Kumar Goel  vs The State of Haryana & Ors. 

Latest Legal News