Supreme Court Restores Compensation for Land Acquisition in Haryana: Kamla Devi vs. State of Haryana (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 20 December 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 1028
Judges: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

When land is acquired by the government, how should compensation be determined? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case concerning land acquired in Haryana. The Court has restored the compensation amount initially awarded by the Reference Court, setting aside the High Court’s reduction of the same. This judgment reinforces the importance of fair compensation for landowners when their property is acquired by the state. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

This case involves the acquisition of land in village Tauru, District Mewat, by the State of Haryana. The acquisition was initiated through notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 11 February 2011 and 10 February 2012, respectively. The dispute centers on the appropriate compensation to be awarded to the landowners for the acquired land. The appellants, Kamla Devi and others, are the landowners who were aggrieved by the reduction in compensation awarded by the High Court. They sought the restoration of the compensation amount as determined by the Reference Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court had reduced the valuation of the land and affirmed the figures granted by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC). Aggrieved by this, the landowners appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a related case, *Horrmal vs. State of Haryana*, had already set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Since the present appeal arose from the same land acquisition, the Supreme Court applied the same reasoning and decision.

Legal Framework

This case revolves around the interpretation and application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically Sections 4 and 6, which deal with the notification process for land acquisition. The core issue is the determination of fair compensation for land acquired by the government. The Supreme Court’s decision is guided by the principle that landowners should receive just and equitable compensation for their acquired property.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for the acquisition of land.
• Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the declaration that the land is required for a public purpose.

Arguments

The arguments in this case were largely based on the precedent set in *Horrmal vs. State of Haryana*. The appellants argued that the Reference Court’s valuation was accurate and aligned with the evidence of sale deeds and the potentiality of the land. They contended that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation amount. The State of Haryana, on the other hand, had supported the High Court’s decision, which had reduced the compensation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Re: Assessment of Compensation for the land subsisting in village Tauru, District Mewat acquired by the State of Haryana vide notifications dated 11.02.2011 and 10.02.2012 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court. This decision was based on the precedent set in *Horrmal vs. State of Haryana*.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by its earlier judgment in *Horrmal vs. State of Haryana*. The Court emphasized the need for fair compensation based on the evidence of sale deeds and the potentiality of the land. The Court was also concerned that the High Court had erred in reducing the valuation without sufficient justification.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of ensuring fair compensation to landowners. The court found that the High Court had erred in reducing the compensation without proper justification. The Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in *Horrmal vs. State of Haryana* which had already addressed the same issue. The court noted that the Reference Court’s evaluation was nearly accurate and aligned with the evidence of sale deeds and potentiality of the land.

The court quoted from the Horrmal judgment, “Thus, upon careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court erred in reducing the valuation of the land and affirming the figures granted by the LAC. As demonstrated by our analysis above, the evaluation conducted by the Reference Court was nearly accurate and aligned with the evidence of the sale deeds and potentiality, despite the fact that the sale exemplar Ex. P76, on which it relied upon, may not have been ideal, given the circumstances and its commercial nature.”

The Supreme Court also quoted, “For the reasons stated above, these appeals are allowed, the impugned leading judgment dated 23.08.2022 of the High Court, as well as all other judgments following the said leading judgment which are under challenge in this batch of appeals, are hereby set aside, and the compensation amount granted by the Reference Court is hereby restored.”

The court further directed, “The compensation amount, if already not paid, wholly or partly, as per the award of the Reference Court, shall be paid to the Appellants and other land­owners along with all the statutory benefits including interest, within eight weeks…”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reinforced the principle of fair compensation for land acquisition.
• The Reference Court’s valuation, when aligned with evidence of sale deeds and potentiality, should be given due consideration.
• High Courts should not reduce compensation without sufficient justification.
• Landowners are entitled to statutory benefits, including interest, on the compensation amount.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the compensation amount, if not already paid, should be paid to the appellants and other landowners along with all statutory benefits, including interest, within eight weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court should be restored if it is found to be accurate and aligned with the evidence, and the High Court should not reduce it without sufficient justification. This decision reinforces the importance of fair compensation in land acquisition cases. There is no change in the previous position of law but the court has reinforced the importance of fair compensation in land acquisition cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Kamla Devi vs. State of Haryana* is a significant judgment that ensures fair compensation for landowners whose land is acquired by the government. By restoring the compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court, the Supreme Court has upheld the principles of justice and equity in land acquisition cases. The Court has also clarified that High Courts should not reduce compensation without sufficient justification, reinforcing the importance of the Reference Court’s valuation when it is well-supported by evidence.