New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs. [July 10, 2024]
Citation: 2024 INSC 509; [2024] 7 S.C.R. 443; Supreme Court of India
Background and Facts
This case arose from the acquisition of land in Village Chhalera Bangar, Uttar Pradesh, by the State for planned industrial development under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at ₹110 per sq. yd. based on a sale deed. Dissatisfied, landowners sought higher compensation through references under Section 18. The Reference Court enhanced compensation to between ₹222 and ₹233 per sq. yd. Subsequent appeals led to further increases, with some landowners securing ₹449 per sq. yd. in the Bir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh case, prompting others to seek parity.
Key Issues
Whether compensation should be further enhanced for parity with the Bir Singh case.
Whether landowners could invoke Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act to claim parity with appellate court awards.
How to determine fair market value in the absence of multiple sale exemplars.
Arguments
NOIDA (Appellant):
Argued that Bir Singh was wrongly decided, resulting in inflated compensation due to reliance on a single sale exemplar.
Asserted that Section 28A applies only to Reference Court awards, not appellate decisions.
Stressed the need for deductions for development costs and uniform compensation to avoid financial strain on NOIDA.
Landowners (Respondents):
Sought parity with the compensation in Bir Singh, citing similar land potential and strategic location.
Produced sale deeds and lease transactions showing high market value for nearby plots.
Invoked Article 14, demanding equality in compensation for similarly situated landowners.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court recognized the inconsistency in compensation rates and the need for uniformity among similarly situated landowners.
The Court held that Section 28A does not extend to appellate court judgments, but invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice and ensure parity.
Applying the principle of “guesstimation,” the Court considered the land’s potential for residential use and the evidence of urbanization, but noted that sale deeds for small plots cannot be directly used to value large tracts without adjustments.
The Court enhanced the compensation to ₹403 per sq. yd., balancing the need for fair compensation with deductions for development and the unique circumstances of the acquisition.
The Court clarified that its decision was not a precedent for future cases but a resolution tailored to the peculiar facts and long-standing dispute.
Conclusion and Significance
The Supreme Court allowed the landowners’ appeals in part and NOIDA’s appeals in part, setting the compensation at ₹403 per sq. yd. for the acquired land.
The judgment underscores the importance of parity and fairness in land acquisition compensation and the use of judicial powers to resolve persistent disparities.
The decision clarifies that Section 28A does not apply to appellate awards, but the Court can still ensure equitable outcomes using its constitutional powers.
In summary: The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for NOIDA-acquired land to ₹403 per sq. yd. using the principle of guesstimation and Article 142 powers, ensuring parity with earlier awards and resolving inconsistencies in land acquisition compensation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments