Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recently allowed a plea for enhanced compensation in a case of acquisition of land in Noida by granting parity with co-villagers, emphasising that inordinate delay in filing appeal in compensatory matters, per se, may not be fatal as the rights and equities between the parties can be well balanced by denying the statutory benefits, such as interest for the delayed period.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta allowed an appeal filed by Mohar Singh (Deceased) through his legal representatives by holding that they would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 150 per sq yard for their respective land at Khora village in Ghaziabad acquired in 1988. 

However, the court ordered that the compensation amount would not include statutory interest, including on solatium, as per the rate prescribed under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the period from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act till the filing of the respective first appeals before the High Court.

The court rejected the appellants' claim to compensation at par with the land owners of village Makanpur, saying that such a claim was earlier not allowed.

"There is one more plausible reason for us to turn down the appellant’s claim for the higher rate of Rs 297 per sq yard. We have condoned the delay of nearly 13 years in filing of their first appeals, only to accord parity between the similarly placed land-owners on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution. If the appellants are granted compensation higher than their co-land owners, despite the fact that such counterparts were vigilant in pursuing their remedy promptly, it will lead to hostile discrimination viz those landowners whose fate already stands sealed upto this Court. This will also amount to granting premium on, what can be aptly termed as stale, belated and chance claim of the appellants," the bench said. 

In this case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer on February 01, 1991 granted compensation at the rate of Rs 70 per sq yard in the acquisition of land measuring 337.892 acres.

Most of the land owners, including the appellant approached the reference court, which enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs 106 per sq yard.

On the first appeal, the High Court in 2016 raised the compensation at the rate of Rs 130 per sq yard.

Upon filing of civil appeals, the apex court increased compensation further at the rate of Rs 150 per sq yard.

The appellants filed their first appeal in the High Court after a delay of 12 years and 353 days attributed to illiteracy and poverty. The High Court, however, declined to condone the delay and dismissed their appeals. However, in the case of other landowners, it enhanced the compensation

The appellants sought parity with co-villagers and also sought further enhancement of compensation at rate of Rs 297 per sq yard in terms of lands acquired in village Makanpur.

Noida's counsel opposed the plea, saying that the appellants who slept over the matter being satisfied with the rate of compensation as determined by the Reference Court, had rightly been non-suited by the High Court on account of their gross negligence.

"Consequently, the appellants forfeited their so called right to seek parity which was nothing but an afterthought claim made out of greed. The plea of illiteracy or poverty was a lame excuse. Not only that the appellants are residents of an area which falls in NCR, they had also gotten a handsome compensation amount from the Reference Court, which fact alone belies their plea of poverty and ignorance," he said.

The court, however, said, "We are satisfied that the appellants are entitled to seek parity with their co-villagers in the grant of compensation for their acquired land. This Court has consistently held in a catena of decisions that the inordinate delay in filing appeal in compensatory matters, per se, may not be fatal as the rights and equities between the parties can be well balanced by denying the statutory benefits, such as interest for the delayed period."

The court said that the delay in filing the first appeal(s) could be condoned subject to the condition that the appellants would not be entitled to ensure undue benefit for the delayed period. 

"All that the High Court ought to have emphatically denied to the late-comers was the benefit of interest including on the solatium, under Section 34 of the Act for the period from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court till the filing of the first appeals," the bench said.

Case Title: Mohar Singh (Dead) Thr LRs & Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors