Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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