LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Amanullah Khan vs. The State of Haryana and Another
Judgment Date: 8 September 2022
Date of the Judgment: 8 September 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 747
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.
Can landowners receive increased compensation for their acquired land if a similar case has already set a higher compensation rate? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a series of appeals concerning land acquisitions in Haryana. The core issue revolved around determining the appropriate market value for lands acquired under notifications issued in 1986, 1992, and 1995. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case involves multiple appeals related to land acquired in Ajronda village, Faridabad, Haryana, under three separate notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisitions were for various public purposes, including a green belt, semi-public uses, and commercial/residential development.
Specifically:
- Notification dated 7 April 1986: 6.97 acres acquired for a green belt.
- Notification dated 5 June 1992: 7.81 acres acquired for semi-public use.
- Notification dated 3 July 1995: 98.66 acres acquired for commercial, institutional, recreational, and residential purposes.
The landowners sought higher compensation than what was initially awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and later by the Reference Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 7 April 1986 | Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring 6.97 acres for a green belt. |
| 30 March 1989 | Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at Rs. 3,38,800 per acre for the land acquired under the notification dated 7 April 1986. |
| 5 June 1992 | Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring 7.81 acres for semi-public use. |
| 2 June 1995 | Collector determined the market value at Rs. 4,50,000 per acre for the land acquired under the notification dated 5 June 1992. |
| 3 July 1995 | Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring 98.66 acres for commercial, institutional, recreational, and residential purposes. |
| 29 June 1998 | Collector determined the market value at Rs. 5,85,000 per acre for the land acquired under the notification dated 3 July 1995. |
| 11 March 2019 | Supreme Court determined compensation in Civil Appeal No. 2736 of 2019 (Balwant Singh (D) through Lr. Gurbinder Singh v. The State of Haryana) for lands acquired under the same notifications. |
| 5 September 2022 | Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals, with a condition regarding statutory benefits. |
| 8 September 2022 | Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, enhancing compensation for the landowners. |
Course of Proceedings
The Reference Court initially enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court further modified these awards. The landowners then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking compensation at par with a previous judgment of the Supreme Court concerning similar land acquisitions in the same village.
Legal Framework
The case is governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Specifically, Section 4 of the Act deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for land acquisition. The court also considered Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows for re-determination of compensation in certain cases.
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 states:
“Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.—(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.”
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 states:
“Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.—(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court, require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court: Provided that in computing the period of three months, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.”
Arguments
Appellants (Landowners):
- The landowners argued that the Supreme Court had already determined the compensation for lands acquired under the same notifications in the case of Balwant Singh (D) through Lr. Gurbinder Singh v. The State of Haryana, and they should receive the same compensation.
- They relied on the precedent set in Balwant Singh, where the Supreme Court had awarded Rs. 435 per square yard for land acquired under the 1986 notification, and Rs. 860 and Rs. 1210 per square yard for lands acquired under the 1992 and 1995 notifications, respectively.
Respondent (State of Haryana):
- The State of Haryana did not dispute the compensation rates set in Balwant Singh but opposed the appeals based on the delay in filing the appeals.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Claim for Enhanced Compensation |
|
Appellants (Landowners) |
| Opposition based on delay |
|
Respondent (State of Haryana) |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the appellants (landowners) are entitled to the same compensation as determined by the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (D) through Lr. Gurbinder Singh v. The State of Haryana, given that their lands were acquired under the same notifications.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellants are entitled to the same compensation as in Balwant Singh? | Yes, the appellants are entitled to the same compensation. | The court followed the precedent set in Balwant Singh, noting the lands were acquired under the same notifications. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court primarily relied on its own judgment in Balwant Singh (D) through Lr. Gurbinder Singh v. The State of Haryana [Civil Appeal No. 2736 of 2019]. This case had already determined the compensation for lands acquired under the same notifications. The court also considered Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows for re-determination of compensation based on court awards.
| Authority | Court | How Authority was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Balwant Singh (D) through Lr. Gurbinder Singh v. The State of Haryana [Civil Appeal No. 2736 of 2019] | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Section 28A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Statute | Applied to justify re-determination of compensation |
Judgment
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, enhancing the compensation for the landowners. The court held that the landowners were entitled to the same compensation as determined in Balwant Singh. The compensation was set at:
- Rs. 435 per square yard for land acquired under the notification dated 7 April 1986.
- Rs. 860 per square yard for land acquired under the notification dated 5 June 1992.
- Rs. 1210 per square yard for land acquired under the notification dated 3 July 1995.
The court also directed that the landowners would receive all other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, they would not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the period between the High Court’s judgment and the filing of their appeals in the Supreme Court. This condition was imposed due to the delay in filing the appeals.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ claim for compensation at par with Balwant Singh | Accepted. The court held that the landowners were entitled to the same compensation. |
| State’s objection based on delay | Partially accepted. The delay was condoned, but interest on the enhanced compensation was denied for the period of delay. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Balwant Singh (D) through Lr. Gurbinder Singh v. The State of Haryana [Civil Appeal No. 2736 of 2019] | The court followed the precedent set in this case, stating that the landowners were entitled to the same compensation as determined in Balwant Singh because the lands were acquired under the same notifications. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle of consistency and fairness. The Supreme Court had already determined the appropriate compensation for lands acquired under the same notifications in Balwant Singh. The court found no reason to deviate from this precedent. The court also considered Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows for re-determination of compensation based on court awards, further solidifying its decision to apply the precedent set in Balwant Singh. The delay in filing the appeals was addressed by denying interest for the period of delay, balancing the interests of the landowners and the state.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consistency with precedent | 40% |
| Fairness to landowners | 30% |
| Statutory compliance (Section 28A) | 20% |
| Balancing interests of State and landowners | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- Landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notifications are entitled to the same compensation as determined in prior judgments by the Supreme Court.
- Delay in filing appeals may result in the denial of interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay.
- The Supreme Court prioritizes consistency and fairness in determining compensation for land acquisition.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the claimants would not be entitled to statutory benefits, including interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the High Court’s judgments until the respective appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that landowners are entitled to the same compensation as determined in prior judgments by the Supreme Court for lands acquired under the same notifications. This case reinforces the principle of consistency and fairness in compensation for land acquisition. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reaffirms the application of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Amanullah Khan vs. The State of Haryana ensures that landowners receive fair compensation for their acquired lands, consistent with previous rulings. The judgment highlights the importance of precedent and the application of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while also addressing the issue of delays in filing appeals.
FAQ
Q: What does this judgment mean for landowners whose land was acquired in Haryana?
A: This judgment means that if your land was acquired under the notifications dated 7 April 1986, 5 June 1992, or 3 July 1995 in Ajronda village, Faridabad, Haryana, you are entitled to the same compensation as determined in the Balwant Singh case. This is Rs. 435 per square yard for the 1986 notification, Rs. 860 for the 1992 notification, and Rs. 1210 for the 1995 notification.
Q: What is Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
A: Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, allows landowners to seek a re-determination of compensation based on a court award that has granted higher compensation to other landowners whose land was acquired under the same notification.
Q: What happens if there is a delay in filing an appeal?
A: If there is a delay in filing an appeal, the court may condone the delay but may also deny interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of the delay, as was done in this case.
Q: What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision?
A: The Supreme Court’s decision was mainly based on the principle of consistency and fairness. Since the court had already determined the compensation for similar land acquisitions in Balwant Singh, it saw no reason to deviate from that precedent.