NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusOMVIR SINGH & ORS.

                          [2022] 17 S.C.R. 729                             729


  NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                               A
                                   v.
                       OMVIR SINGH & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 9085 of 2022)
                         DECEMBER 15, 2022
                                                                           B
             [M. R. SHAH AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 4, 6, 18 – Land acquisition –
Enhancement of compensation – Land in question acquired for the
planned development by the NOIDA, vide Notification dated
22.11.1982 – Award of compensation at Rs.30,000/- per bigha –
Reference u/s. 18 by original owner-father of the respondent, raising      C
objections against the award and claiming enhanced compensation
– Reference dismissed – Review application also dismissed – After
a period of 16 years, from the date of rejection of review applications,
the respondent filed an appeal – High Court while condoning delay,
enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per sq. yard, however, denied        D
the interest during the period of delay – On appeal, held:
Compensation determined on the basis of the Notification 5 years
later, cannot be a yardstick for determining the compensation for
the land which is acquired five years before – Applying the law laid
down by this Court in U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad’s case, to the
instant case, the claimants would not be entitled to the same              E
compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after 5
years from the date of acquisition in the instant case – On facts,
notification u/s. 4 was issued on 22.11.1982 and the relied upon
decisions with respect to Village Makanpur and other villages are
of the year 1986/88, which cannot be the basis – As regards, the           F
delay of 16/26 years, the High Court while enhancing compensation,
denied the interest for the period of delay thus, no reason to interfere
with the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay –
Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
awarding compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq. yard is unsustainable
and the original claimants would be entitled to compensation at the        G
rate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard.
         Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 The submissions made on behalf of the appellant
that the High Court has erred in condoning the delay of 16/26
                                                                           H
                                  729
730            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     years in preferring the appeal is concerned, in the peculiar facts
      and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that even
      while enhancing the amount of compensation and entertaining
      the appeal, the High Court has denied the interest for the period
      of delay and has exercised its discretion in favour of the claimants,
      there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High
B
      Court condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. [Para 5.1][736-
      H; 737-A-B]
            1.2 The acquisition is of the year 1982 and in all other relied
      upon cases the acquisition(s) is/are of the year 1986/88. In all
      those cases, where the amount of compensation has been
C     determined @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard, the acquisition(s) is/are of
      the years 1986/1988 with respect to the Village Makanpur and
      other nearby villages acquired for the development of NOIDA/
      Ghaziabad. In the case of Narendra’s case, this Court had
      enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.297/- per sq.yard
D     with respect to the land acquired in Village Makanpur and other
      surrounding villages acquired for the very same project, but with
      respect to the acquisition of the years 1986/1988. However,
      subsequently in the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad’s case
      and after considering the decision of this Court in the case of
      Narendra’s case with respect to the village Makanpur and other
E     surrounding villages with respect to the acquisition of the year
      1982, this Court has determined the compensation at Rs.120/-
      per sq.yard. In the said decision, while refusing to accept the
      claim of Rs.297/- per sq.yard as awarded in the case of Narendra’s
      case which was with respect to the acquisition of 1988, this Court
F     has observed that the compensation determined on the basis of
      the Notification 5 years later, cannot be a yardstick for determining
      the compensation for the land which is acquired five years before.
      This Court has also taken note of the fact that between the year
      1982 and 1987/1988, development activities had been
      undertaken. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case
G     of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad to the instant case, the claimants
      would not be entitled to the same compensation as awarded with
      respect to the lands acquired after 5 years from the date of
      acquisition in the instant case. In the instant case, Section 4
      Notification had been issued on 22.11.1982 and the relied upon
H
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.                          731
             OMVIR SINGH & ORS.

decisions with respect to Village Makanpur and other villages          A
are of the year 1986/88, which as observed by this Court in the
said decision in the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad’s case,
cannot be the basis. Under the above circumstances, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court awarding
compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard is unsustainable and it is
                                                                       B
held that the original claimants would be entitled to compensation
at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard. [Para 5.2][737-B-H; 738-A-
B]
      1.3 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court is modified. It is ordered and directed that the original
claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.120/     C
- per sq.yard along with all other statutory benefits and interest
allowable under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
However, the claimants would not be entitled to the statutory
benefits including the interest under the Act, 1894 on the
enhanced amount of compensation for the delayed period in              D
preferring the appeal before the High Court i.e. from the date of
rejection of the review application till the first appeal was filed
before the High Court. [Para 6][738-C-D]
      Asha Ram (Dead) through LRs and Others vs. U.P. Awas
      Avam Vikas Parishad and Another (2022) 2 SCC 567 –               E
      relied on.
      Narendra and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
      Others (2017) 9 SCC 426 : [2017] 11 SCR 540 –
      referred to.
                      Case Law Reference                               F
[2017] 11 SCR 540              referred to             Para 3.2
(2022) 2 SCC 567               relied on               Para 5.2
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9085
of 2022.                                                               G
      From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Defective No.308 of 2015.
     Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AAG, Ravindra Kumar, Ranji
Thomas, Yatindra Singh, Pradeep Kant, Sr. Advs., Binay Kumar Das,
Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Neha Das, Ajai Kumar, Abhay Kumar Tayal,         H
732              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     Ms. Manvi Dikshit Sharma, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad,
      Haraprasad Sahu, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Ajit Singh Pundir, D. V.
      Singh, Arijeet Singh, Ms. Shanti Swaroop Singh, Sourav Roy, Kaushal
      Sharma, Prabudh Singh, Vishal Malik, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Chandan
      Kumar, Vimal Johnson Kerketta, Ms. Sushma, Ms. Monika, Ms. Babila
      K. K., Ms. Saloni Saran, Mahesh Kr. Tiwari, Bishnu Prasad Tiwari,
B
      Kumar Rajeev, Ashutosh Sharma, Ms. Gunjan Sharma, Mahendra Kumar,
      Ram Sajjan Mishra, Ms. Swati Jain, R. K. Bali, Ms. Meghna Bali,
      Deepkaran Dalal, Anil Kaushik, Rajat Rana, Ms. Anju Kaushik, Ms.
      Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma, M. R. Shamshad,
      Mohd Waquas, Arijit Sarkar, Ms. Nabeela Jamil, Saleem Khan, Surendra
C     Kr. Gupta, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, K. S. Rana, Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms.
      Reeta Chaudhary, Aneesh Mittal, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Akhilesh Kalra,
      Rohit Kumar Singh, Harsh Jain, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Shubham Kumar,
      Ms. Rani Mishra, Chiranjeev Johri, Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Ganga Sagar
      Singh, Ashish Kumar Chaurosiya, Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Anurag
      Nagar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
D
               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
               M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the High Court of Judicature at
E     Allahabad in First Appeal Defective No.308 of 2015, by which the High
      Court has rejected the said appeal after a period of approximately 16
      years (as per the appellant, there was a delay of 26 years) by which the
      High Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the land owners
      to Rs.297/- per sq.yard, NOIDA has preferred the present appeal.
F              2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell, are as
      under:
             2.1 That the land in question situated in Village Gheja Tilapatabad,
      Tehsil and Pargana Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now District Gautam Budh
      Nagar) was acquired for the planned development by the NOIDA, vide
G     Notification issued under Section 4, dated 22.11.1982. A declaration under
      the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued
      on 23.11.1982. The possession of the acquired land was taken over by
      the State on 22.02.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer/Collector declared
      the Award dated 05.09.1983 and awarded/determined the compensation
      at Rs.30,000/- per bigha, relying upon the sale deed dated 02.11.1982 of
H
 NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.                                  733
        OMVIR SINGH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

certain parcels of land in the village itself. The father of the contesting     A
respondents accepted the compensation. At the instance of the original
owners – father of the contesting respondents, a Reference under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 raising objections against the Award
was made. The original claimants claimed compensation @ Rs.60,000/-
per bigha. On contest, by a detailed judgment and order dated 04.05.1989,
                                                                                B
the Reference Court dismissed the said Reference along with other
references. Review applications were filed which came to be dismissed
in the year 1998. That after a period of 16 years from the date of rejection
of the review applications in the year 2014/2015,the respondents filed
the present first appeal before the High Court and relied upon the
judgment in some other first appeals by which the compensation was              C
enhanced to Rs.297/- per sq.yard. By the impugned judgment and order,
the High Court has condoned the delay of 16 years, however it has
denied the interest during the period of delay, and has enhanced the
amount of compensation to Rs.297/- per yard. Hence, the present appeal
at the instance of the NOIDA.
                                                                                D
       3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the NOIDA has
vehemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred in
entertaining the appeal after a period of 16 years from the date of dismissal
of the review application and after a period of 26 years from the date of
the decision by the Reference Court.
                                                                                E
       3.1 It is submitted that even otherwise, on merits also in view of
the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Asha Ram (Dead)
through LRs and Others vs. U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad and
Another, (2022) 2 SCC 567 with respect to the land acquisition of
1982,this Hon’ble Court has reduced the amount of compensation to
Rs.120/- per sq.yard, the claimants shall not be entitled to compensation       F
at the rate of Rs.297/- per sq.yard, as awarded by the High Court.
        3.2 It is submitted that as such, in the subsequent decision in the
case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad (supra), this Court did
consider its earlier decision in the case of Narendra and Others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 426, by which                   G
this Court for the acquisition with respect to the nearby villages of the
year 1988, has allowed compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard. However,
it is submitted that considering the development which took place between
the year 1982-1986/1988 this Court in the case of U.P. Awas Avam
Vikas Parishad (supra), did not accept the case on behalf of the                H
734            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     claimants for awarding Rs.297/-per sq.yard and determined the
      compensation for the lands acquired in the year 1982, at Rs.120/- per
      sq.yard.
             4. While opposing the present appeal, learned counsel appearing
      on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that in the
B     facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has not committed
      any error in condoning the delay of 16/26 years by observing that the
      claimants are entitled tojust compensation.
            4.1 It is submitted that considering the case of the other land
      owners decided vide judgment and order passed in the year 2014 with
C     respect to similar acquisition with respect to the nearby villages, the
      amount of compensation had been enhanced to Rs.297/- per sq.yard.
      Following the same, in the present case the amount of compensation has
      been awarded @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard,which cannot be said to be
      unreasonable and the High Court has not committed any error.

D           4.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants
      has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the High Court,
      confirmed by this Court by which the compensation has been determined
      at Rs.297/- per sq.yard.
                                     INDEX
E




F




G




H
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.   735
       OMVIR SINGH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

                                                A




                                                B




                                                C




                                                D




                                                E




                                                F




                                                G




                                                H
736            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A




B




C




D




E




F




            Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
G     decisions/orders passed by the High Court as well as this Court, it is
      prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.
            5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      respective parties at length.
            5.1 So far as the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that
H     the High Court has erred in condoning the delay of 16/26 years in
 NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.                                737
        OMVIR SINGH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

preferring the appeal is concerned, in the peculiar facts and circumstances   A
of the case and considering the fact that even while enhancing the amount
of compensation and entertaining the appeal, the High Court has denied
the interest for the period of delay and has exercised its discretion in
favour of the claimants, we see no reason to interfere with the order
passed by the High Court condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.
                                                                              B
       5.2 Now so far as merits of the appeal and the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court enhancing the amount of compensation
at Rs.297/- per sq.yard is concerned and the reliance placed upon the
decisions of the High Court and this Court referred to hereinabove and
relied upon on behalf of the claimants is concerned, at the outset it is
required to be noted that in the present case, the acquisition is of the      C
year 1982 and in all other relied upon cases the acquisition(s) is/are of
the year 1986/88. In all those cases, where the amount of compensation
has been determined @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard, the acquisition(s)is/are of
the years 1986/1988 with respect to the Village Makanpur and other
nearby villages acquired for the development of NOIDA/Ghaziabad. In           D
the case of Narendra & Ors. (supra), this Court had enhanced the
amount of compensation to Rs.297/- per sq.yard with respect to the land
acquired in Village Makanpur and other surrounding villages acquired
for the very same project, but with respect to the acquisition ofthe years
1986/1988. However, subsequently in the case of U.P. Awas Avam
Vikas Parishad (supra) and after considering the decision of this Court       E
in the case of Narendra & Ors. (supra) with respect to the village
Makanpur and other surrounding villages situated at Village Prahladgarh,
Village Jhandapur, Village Sahibabad, Village Arthala with respect to the
acquisition of the year 1982,this Court has determined the compensation
at Rs.120/- per sq.yard. In the said decision, while refusing to accept       F
theclaim of Rs.297/- per sq.yard as awarded in the case of Narendra
& Ors. (supra) which was with respect to the acquisition of 1988, this
Court has observed that the compensation determined on the basis of
the Notification 5 years later, cannot be a yardstick for determiningthe
compensation for the land which is acquired five years before. This
Court has also taken note of the fact that between the year 1982 and          G
1987/1988, development activities had been undertaken. Applying the
law laid down by this Court in the case of U.P. Awas Avam Vikas
Parishad (supra) to the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled
to the same compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired
after 5 years from the date of acquisition in the present case. As observed   H
738               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     hereinabove, in the present case, Section 4 Notification had been issued
      on 22.11.1982 and the relied upon decisions with respect to Village
      Makanpur and other villages are of the year 1986/88, which as observed
      by this Court in the aforesaid decision in the case of U.P. Awas Avam
      Vikas Parishad (supra),cannot be the basis. Under the above
      circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
B
      Court awarding compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard is unsustainable
      and it is heldthat the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation
      at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard.
             6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the present
      appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by
C     the High Court is hereby modified. It is ordered and directed that the
      original claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.120/
      - per sq.yard along with all other statutory benefits and interest allowable
      under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the
      claimants shall not be entitled to the statutory benefits including the interest
D     under the Act, 1894 on the enhanced amount of compensation for the
      delayed period in preferring the appeal before the High Court i.e. from
      the date of rejection of the review application till the first appeal was
      filed before the High Court.
               Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No
E     costs.

      Nidhi Jain                                                 Appeal partly allowed.
      (Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)



F




G




H