LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land owners who file appeals for enhanced compensation after a significant delay can receive the same compensation as their co-owners, and if so, whether they are entitled to statutory benefits for the delayed period.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Mohar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector & Ors.
Judgment Date: November 07, 2023
Date of the Judgment: November 07, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1019
Judges: Surya Kant J. and Dipankar Datta J.
Can land owners who file appeals for enhanced compensation after a significant delay receive the same compensation as their co-owners? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning land acquisition in Uttar Pradesh. The court allowed the appeal for parity in compensation but denied statutory benefits for the delayed period. This blog post will delve into the details of this judgment.
The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, who delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case revolves around the acquisition of land in village Khora, Uttar Pradesh. The initial notification for acquisition was issued on March 17, 1988, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 70 per sq. yard on February 1, 1991.
Dissatisfied with the compensation, many land owners, including the appellants, filed references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Xth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, partly accepted these references on April 6, 1998, and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 106 per sq. yard.
While other land owners filed first appeals in the High Court for further enhancement of compensation, the appellants filed their appeals much later, in 2011, with a delay of 12 years and 353 days. They cited illiteracy and poverty as reasons for the delay.
The appellants sought condonation of delay, but the High Court dismissed their appeals on March 9, 2016. Meanwhile, the High Court enhanced compensation for other land owners to Rs. 130 per sq. yard on July 4, 2016, which was further enhanced by the Supreme Court to Rs. 150 per sq. yard on December 12, 2017.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 17, 1988 | Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued for land acquisition in village Khora. |
| February 1, 1991 | Special Land Acquisition Officer awards compensation at Rs. 70 per sq. yard. |
| April 6, 1998 | Xth Additional District Judge enhances compensation to Rs. 106 per sq. yard. |
| 2011 | Appellants file first appeals in the High Court with a delay of 12 years and 353 days. |
| March 9, 2016 | High Court dismisses appellants’ appeals due to delay. |
| April 21, 2016 | High Court enhances compensation for the land of village Makanpur to Rs.297 per sq. yard in First Appeal No.522/2009. |
| July 4, 2016 | High Court enhances compensation for other land owners to Rs. 130 per sq. yard. |
| December 12, 2017 | Supreme Court enhances compensation to Rs. 150 per sq. yard. |
| November 07, 2023 | Supreme Court allows the appeals in part, granting compensation at Rs. 150 per sq. yard but denying interest for the delayed period. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants initially filed references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which resulted in a partial enhancement of compensation by the Xth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. Subsequently, while other land owners filed first appeals in the High Court, the appellants delayed filing their appeals by nearly 13 years. The High Court dismissed their appeals due to this delay. The other land owners’ appeals were decided on 04.07.2016, wherein the High Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.130 per sq. yard. Later, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 150 per sq. yard in appeals filed by other land owners.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically:
- Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the preliminary notification for land acquisition. The source mentions, “the land… was proposed to be acquired by a notification dated 17.03.1988 published on 19.03.1988 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894”.
- Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section allows landowners to seek a reference to the court for determination of compensation. The source mentions, “Most of the land owners, including the appellants, filed reference under Section 18 of the Act.”
- Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section provides for payment of interest on the compensation amount. The source mentions, “All that the High Court ought to have emphatically denied to the late-comers was the benefit of interest including on the solatium, under Section 34 of the Act for the period from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court till the filing of the first appeals.”
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The source mentions, “We have condoned the delay of nearly 13 years in filing of their first appeals, only to accord parity between the similarly placed land-owners on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Arguments
The appellants argued for parity with other land owners, seeking compensation at the rate of Rs. 150 per sq. yard, as determined by the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra and others. They also claimed that since the High Court had enhanced the compensation for the adjoining land of village Makanpur to Rs. 297 per sq. yard, they were entitled to the same rate.
The respondent, NOIDA, contended that the appellants’ appeals were filed after an inordinate delay of almost 13 years. They argued that the appellants had forfeited their right to seek parity due to their negligence and that the plea of illiteracy and poverty was a lame excuse.
| Submissions | Appellants’ Arguments | Respondents’ Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Parity in Compensation | ✓ Entitled to compensation at Rs. 150 per sq. yard, same as co-owners (Jitendra and others case). ✓ The High Court should have condoned the delay. |
✓ Appellants’ delay of 13 years forfeits their right to seek parity. ✓ Claim is an afterthought due to greed. |
| Enhanced Compensation Based on Adjoining Land | ✓ Entitled to Rs. 297 per sq. yard, as awarded for land in village Makanpur. ✓ The Reference Court had relied upon the rate of compensation awarded for the adjoining land of village Makanpur. |
✓ Claim for parity with Makanpur land was rejected by the High Court and impliedly by the Supreme Court. ✓ Granting higher compensation would be hostile discrimination to those whose fate is sealed. |
| Condonation of Delay | ✓ Delay was due to illiteracy and poverty. ✓ Other appeals were pending in the High Court. |
✓ Delay was inordinate and unexplained. ✓ Appellants were negligent, and their plea was a lame excuse. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:
- Whether the delay in filing the first appeals by the appellants could be condoned.
- Whether the appellants were entitled to parity in compensation with their co-owners.
- Whether the appellants were entitled to compensation at par with the land owners of village Makanpur.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Condonation of Delay | Delay condoned | Parity with co-owners is essential, and delay can be balanced by denying interest for the delayed period. |
| Parity in Compensation | Entitled to compensation at Rs. 150 per sq. yard | Parity with co-owners is necessary to ensure equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. |
| Compensation at par with Makanpur land owners | Not entitled to compensation at par with the land owners of village Makanpur | The High Court and Supreme Court had already rejected the claim of parity between the acquired lands of village Khora and Makanpur. Granting higher compensation would be discrimination to other land owners. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Jitendra and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another C.A. No.12631/2017 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to determine the compensation rate of Rs. 150 per sq. yard for the land owners of village Khora. |
| First Appeal No.522/2009 (Pradeep Kumar and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad | The Court noted that the High Court had enhanced the compensation for the land of village Makanpur to Rs. 297 per sq. yard, but rejected the appellants’ claim for parity based on this rate. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Parity with co-owners at Rs. 150 per sq. yard | Accepted, appellants are entitled to compensation at Rs. 150 per sq. yard. |
| Enhanced compensation at Rs. 297 per sq. yard (Makanpur rate) | Rejected, claim for parity with Makanpur land owners was not accepted. |
| Condonation of delay | Delay condoned subject to denial of interest for the delayed period. |
The following authorities were viewed by the Court as follows:
- Jitendra and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [C.A. No.12631/2017]*: The Supreme Court followed this case to determine the compensation rate of Rs. 150 per sq. yard for the land owners of village Khora.
- First Appeal No.522/2009 (Pradeep Kumar and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others)*: The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ claim for parity based on the rate of Rs. 297 per sq. yard awarded by the High Court for the land of village Makanpur.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure equality and parity among similarly situated land owners, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. While the Court acknowledged the delay in filing the appeals, it balanced this with the principle of equal treatment, opting to condone the delay while denying interest for the delayed period. The Court also emphasized that granting higher compensation to the appellants than their co-owners would be discriminatory.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for parity among land owners | 40% |
| Balancing delay with equal treatment | 30% |
| Rejection of higher compensation claim | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles, with a strong emphasis on Article 14 of the Constitution. While the factual aspects of the case, such as the delay and the reasons for it, were considered, the legal aspects played a more significant role in the final decision.
Logical Reasoning
Appellants filed appeals late
Delay of 13 years
Can delay be condoned?
Parity with co-owners is essential
Delay condoned, but interest denied
Entitled to Rs. 150 per sq. yard
Not entitled to Rs. 297 per sq. yard (Makanpur rate)
The Court considered the argument for compensation at par with the land owners of village Makanpur but rejected it, stating that the claim of parity between the acquired lands of village Khora and Makanpur was impliedly rejected by the Supreme Court in the earlier appeals. The Court reasoned that granting higher compensation to the appellants despite their delay would create hostile discrimination against those who pursued their remedies promptly.
The Supreme Court stated, “We are thus of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the first appeal(s) could be condoned subject to the condition that the appellants would not be entitled to enure undue benefit for the delayed period.”
The court also stated, “If the appellants are granted compensation higher than their co-landowners, despite the fact that such counterparts were vigilant in pursuing their remedy promptly, it will lead to hostile discrimination viz those landowners whose fate already stands sealed upto this Court.”
The Court further held, “the appellants are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.150 per sq. yard for their respective acquired land. However, the compensation amount shall not include statutory interest, including on solatium, as per the rate prescribed under Section 34 of the Act, for the period from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act till the filing of the respective first appeals before the High Court.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- Land owners who file appeals for enhanced compensation after a significant delay can be granted the same compensation as their co-owners to ensure parity.
- However, they may be denied statutory benefits, such as interest, for the delayed period.
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The Court will not grant higher compensation than what has been granted to co-owners who were vigilant in pursuing their remedies promptly.
Directions
The appellants were directed to make good the deficiency in court fees within four weeks, after which the arrears of enhanced compensation would be paid to them within eight weeks.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that while delay in filing appeals for enhanced compensation can be condoned to ensure parity among land owners, statutory benefits for the delayed period can be denied. This ruling reinforces the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution while also acknowledging the need to discourage undue delay in seeking legal remedies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh strikes a balance between ensuring parity in compensation for land owners and discouraging undue delay in filing appeals. The Court allowed the appellants’ claim for compensation at the rate of Rs. 150 per sq. yard, but denied them interest for the delayed period. This decision highlights the importance of equal treatment and the need for timely pursuit of legal remedies.