Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: 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 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