Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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