A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case deals with compensation enhancement under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court analyzed the rights of landowners who sought parity with the compensation granted in a previous case (Bir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh). The Court also reviewed appeals by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) against compensation enhancement. Employing the principle of guesstimation, the Court revised compensation rates for acquired lands and addressed procedural concerns regarding Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Keywords: Compensation, Land Acquisition, Guesstimation, Section 28A, Article 142

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) Through LRs & Ors.
• Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 3674-3675 of 2023
• Judgment Date: July 10, 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
• Author: Justice Surya Kant
• Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 443
• Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Sections 4, 6, 17, 18, 23, 28A)
  • Constitution of India (Articles 14, 142)
• Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• Related Legal Subjects: Constitutional Law, Civil Law, Property Law, and Land Acquisition

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute emerged from the compensation rates determined for lands acquired in Village Chhalera Bangar, Uttar Pradesh, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition was intended for planned industrial development by NOIDA. The Supreme Court was tasked with reconciling conflicting High Court judgments and addressing demands for uniformity in compensation.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On January 5, 1991, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4(1) for acquiring approximately 492 acres of land.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at INR 110 per sq. yd., based on a sale deed valuing the land at INR 125 per sq. yd.
3. Landowners filed references under Section 18 seeking higher compensation. The Reference Court granted compensation ranging between INR 222 and 233 per sq. yd.
4. Various appeals resulted in different compensation rates: INR 297.50, INR 340, and INR 449 per sq. yd.
5. The Bir Singh case, relying on a sale exemplar, enhanced compensation to INR 449 per sq. yd., prompting demands for parity.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Should compensation be enhanced, and if so, to what extent?
2. Are miscellaneous applications seeking parity maintainable?
3. Can landowners rely on Section 28A to claim parity with Bir Singh?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Errors in Bir Singh: NOIDA argued that Bir Singh incorrectly interpreted a sale exemplar, leading to an inflated compensation rate.
2. Section 28A Limitations: The provision applies only to Reference Court awards and not appellate decisions.
3. Development Considerations: The acquired land was large and undeveloped, requiring deductions for developmental costs.
4. Uniform Compensation: The authority emphasized a uniform rate to avoid excessive financial burdens on NOIDA.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Parity with Bir Singh: Landowners sought similar compensation rates, highlighting the comparable potentiality of their lands.
2. Strategic Location: They argued that the land’s proximity to prominent amenities and infrastructure warranted higher compensation.
3. Evidence: Respondents cited a sale deed and lease transactions demonstrating high market value for nearby plots.
4. Judicial Fairness: They invoked Article 14, emphasizing equality in compensation for similarly situated landowners.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Notification for acquisition.
• Section 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Declaration of intended acquisition.
• Section 28A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Redetermination of compensation.
• Article 142, Constitution of India: Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice.
• Article 14, Constitution of India: Right to equality.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Principle of Guesstimation: The Court applied this heuristic to estimate market value in the absence of definitive evidence.
2. Revised Compensation: Compensation was set at INR 403 per sq. yd., balancing development deductions and potentiality considerations.
3. Parity Through Article 142: The Court granted parity with Bir Singh using its inherent powers, despite procedural challenges.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Section 28A Interpretation: The provision does not extend to appellate court judgments.
2. Role of Sale Exemplars: Small plots require adjustments when used to value large tracts of land.

c. Guidelines

1. Uniform Application of Compensation Principles: Avoid disparities among similarly situated landowners.
2. Holistic Consideration: Evaluate land characteristics, potentiality, and market sentiments.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to equity and justice in land acquisition cases. By recalibrating compensation and addressing procedural gaps, the Court balanced the rights of landowners with NOIDA’s obligations.

K) REFERENCES

1. Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal (2011) 6 SCC 47
2. Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018) 16 SCC 445
3. Bir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) Civil Appeal Nos. 18620-18623
4. ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745
5. Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana (1986) 4 SCC 151