Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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