Supreme Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Compensation Appeal Due to Delay and Merits: Bihari vs. State of U.P. (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2021

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a delay of six years in filing a special leave petition be condoned, especially when the compensation awarded has already been accepted? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a land acquisition case, ultimately dismissing the petition due to both delay and lack of merit. The Court also noted that the compensation amount was already accepted by the landowners. This judgment highlights the importance of timely legal action and the finality of compensation awards in land acquisition cases. The bench comprised of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over compensation for land acquired by the government. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 6 per square yard to Rs. 28.12 per square yard. The original landowners, dissatisfied with this enhancement, filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. However, this petition was filed approximately six years after the High Court’s judgment. The respondents had already deposited the enhanced compensation, and the landowners had received it in 2013.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the appeal by the original landowners, enhancing the compensation amount to Rs. 28.12 per square yard. Dissatisfied with the enhancement, the original landowners filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. However, this petition was filed with a delay of approximately six years. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents had already deposited the enhanced compensation, and the landowners had received it in 2013.

Legal Framework

The judgment references Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which pertains to the notification for land acquisition. The court also considered the principle of delay in filing a special leave petition, citing the case of Baljeet Singh (dead) through Lrs. & Others v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 33. The court emphasized that a significant delay without sufficient cause can be grounds for dismissal of a petition.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the compensation awarded by the High Court was excessive. However, they did not provide a sufficient explanation for the six-year delay in filing the special leave petition. The respondents argued that the petition should be dismissed due to the delay and because they had already deposited the enhanced compensation, which the landowners had accepted. The Court also noted that the compensation amount was in line with other land acquisition cases for the same purpose.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the following issues were addressed:

1. Whether the special leave petition should be dismissed due to the delay of approximately six years in filing.
2. Whether the petitioners have a case on merits, considering the compensation was already accepted by the landowners.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by two factors: the significant delay in filing the special leave petition and the fact that the landowners had already accepted the enhanced compensation. The Court emphasized the importance of timely legal action and the finality of compensation awards in land acquisition cases. The court also considered the fact that the compensation awarded was consistent with other land acquisition cases for the same purpose.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• “Thus, there is a delay of approximately six years in preferring the special leave petition. No sufficient cause has been shown explaining the huge delay of six years.”
• “Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that after the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the High Court enhancing the compensation to Rs. 28.12 Per Square Yard, in fact, the respondents accepted the judgment and order passed by the High Court and deposited the entire amount as awarded by the High Court and even the landowners received the same in the year 2013 accepting the judgment and order passed by the High court awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 28.12 per square yard.”
• “Even otherwise on merits also, the petitioners have no case. By a detailed judgment and order pronounced today in Civil Appeal Nos. 5738-5739 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021, we have determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 28.12 Per Square Yard with respect to the lands acquired for the very purpose for which the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 1976.”

Key Takeaways

• Significant delays in filing special leave petitions can lead to their dismissal, especially when no sufficient cause is shown.
• Acceptance of compensation awarded by a lower court can weaken a party’s case in subsequent appeals.
• The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of timely legal action and the finality of compensation awards in land acquisition cases.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a special leave petition can be dismissed on the grounds of significant delay and lack of merit, especially when the compensation awarded by the lower court has already been accepted by the landowners. This reinforces the principle that timely legal action is crucial and that acceptance of a judgment can weaken the chances of a successful appeal. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by the original landowners due to a six-year delay and lack of merit. The Court emphasized that the landowners had already accepted the enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court, and the compensation was consistent with other similar cases. This judgment reinforces the importance of timely legal action and the finality of compensation awards in land acquisition cases.