Supreme Court enhances land compensation near Mathura Refinery: Anek Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) INSC 915 (28 November 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 915

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan

How should compensation for land be determined when it is acquired for industrial development? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning land acquired near the Mathura Refinery. The core issue was whether the compensation awarded to the landowners was fair, considering the land’s proximity to the refinery and prevailing market rates. The Supreme Court bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan delivered the judgment, allowing the appeals of the landowners.

Case Background

The case revolves around the acquisition of 263.05 acres of land in village Annanpura, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, for the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). The land was acquired for planned industrial development. The initial notification for acquisition was issued on February 5, 1977, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Following this, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on February 7, 1977, and possession of the land was taken on May 13, 1977.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award on August 30, 1980, determining compensation based on soil quality. The rates varied from ₹1489.93 to ₹7972.35 per acre. The landowners, feeling aggrieved by the compensation, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was rejected. Subsequently, first appeals were filed, which were also dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The landowners initially sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was rejected. Subsequently, they filed first appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court dismissed these appeals on April 30, 2019, upholding the compensation awarded by the lower authorities. The landowners then filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Specifically, Section 4 deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for land acquisition, and Section 6 deals with the declaration of intended acquisition. Section 18 provides the process for seeking reference to the court for determination of compensation. The relevant sections are:

• Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for land acquisition.
• Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the declaration of intended acquisition.
• Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section provides the process for seeking reference to the court for determination of compensation.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate, especially considering the land’s location.

• Appellant’s Argument: The appellants argued that their land was situated just across the road from Gate No. 9 of the Mathura Refinery. They highlighted that land in the nearby village of Bhainsa, which was not as close to the refinery, had been compensated at a rate of ₹15 per sq. mtr. In contrast, their land was compensated at a rate of ₹1.93 per sq. mtr.
• Appellant’s Argument: The appellants also relied on the circle rates notified by the District Magistrate of Mathura, which indicated a higher valuation for land near the refinery. They contended that the High Court failed to consider these factors.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the compensation was determined based on the quality of the soil, which was agricultural land.

• Respondent’s Argument: The respondents contended that all three courts had concurrently concluded that the land was agricultural and the compensation was rightly granted based on the type of soil.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the primary issue before the court was:

• Whether the compensation awarded to the appellants was just and adequate, considering the location of their land and the prevailing market rates.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s decision was not sustainable in law. The Court noted that the respondents had not disputed that the appellants’ land was situated just across the road from Gate No. 9 of the Mathura Refinery.

The Supreme Court relied on the order issued by the District Magistrate, Mathura, which determined the value of land within a 1 km radius of the Mathura Refinery at ₹15 per sq. mtr. The Court also noted that the Reference Court had awarded compensation at the same rate for land in the nearby village of Bhainsa.

The Court stated:

• “It is thus clear that the respondents have not disputed the position that the land is just across the road facing Gate No.9 of the Mathura refinery.”
• “In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.”
• “The respondents are directed to pay compensation to the appellants @ Rs.15/- per sq. mtr.”

The Court allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court’s order, and directed the respondents to pay compensation at a rate of ₹15 per sq. mtr, along with all statutory benefits and interest.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The undisputed proximity of the appellants’ land to the Mathura Refinery.
• The disparity in compensation awarded to the appellants compared to the compensation awarded for land in the nearby village of Bhainsa.
• The circle rates notified by the District Magistrate of Mathura, which indicated a higher valuation for land near the refinery.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

Key Takeaways

• Proximity to industrial areas is a significant factor in determining land compensation.
• Circle rates notified by the District Magistrate are crucial in determining fair compensation.
• Disparities in compensation for similar lands in the same vicinity should be addressed.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to pay compensation to the appellants at a rate of ₹15 per sq. mtr. The appellants are also entitled to all statutory benefits along with interest on the awarded amount. The payment was directed to be made within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the location of the land, especially its proximity to industrial areas, is a significant factor in determining fair compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This judgment reinforces the principle that compensation should reflect the market value of the land, considering its potential use and location.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Anek Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh underscores the importance of fair compensation in land acquisition cases. By considering the land’s proximity to the Mathura Refinery and the prevailing market rates, the Court ensured that the landowners received just compensation for their acquired land. This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for future land acquisition cases, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors in determining compensation.