Land Acquisition Compensation: Supreme Court Orders Higher Payout for Farmers in Mathura

The Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of landowners in a landmark case concerning compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The case, Anek Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., involved the acquisition of agricultural land in Mathura for industrial development by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). The appellants, who were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, successfully challenged the decision, leading to a significant increase in the compensation amount.

Background of the Case

On February 5, 1977, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring 263.05 acres of land in Village Annanpura, Tehsil and District Mathura. The land was acquired for planned industrial development by UPSIDC. Following the acquisition, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on August 30, 1980, determining compensation based on the soil quality of the land.

The compensation rates per acre were:

Baraha Avval Chahi – Rs. 1,489.93
Baraha Avval Khaki – Rs. 6,923.35
Baraha Doyam Chahi – Rs. 7,972.35
Baraha Doyam Khaki – Rs. 4,825.37
Putha Khaki – Rs. 3,143.98

Unsatisfied with the compensation, the appellants filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was rejected. They then approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which also dismissed their appeals. This led them to file special leave petitions before the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants, represented by senior counsel Shri S.P. Singh, made the following contentions:

The compensation awarded to them was unfair compared to nearby landowners.
In a neighboring village, Bhainsa, which was not as close to the Mathura Refinery, landowners received compensation at Rs. 15 per square meter, whereas the appellants were granted only Rs. 1.93 per square meter.
The land of the appellants was located directly across Gate No. 9 of the Mathura Refinery, making it highly valuable.
The District Magistrate of Mathura had issued an order determining circle rates for land valuation, which supported a higher compensation.
The High Court erred in dismissing their appeal without properly considering these factors.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, represented by Additional Advocate General Shri K. Parameshwar, argued:

The compensation was determined fairly based on the soil quality of the acquired land.
Three different courts, including the High Court, had upheld the compensation amount, indicating that due process had been followed.
The appellants’ land was classified as agricultural land, and the rates were set accordingly.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, noted several key issues:

The land in question was located just across the road from the Mathura Refinery, a fact that had gone unchallenged by the respondents.
In the case of village Bhainsa, which was farther from the refinery, the Reference Court had awarded compensation at Rs. 15 per square meter.
The District Magistrate’s order had set higher circle rates for land within a 1 km radius of the refinery.
The respondents did not provide any justification for the lower compensation awarded to the appellants.

Considering these factors, the Court ruled:

“The impugned orders are not sustainable in law. The appeals are allowed.”

The Court quashed the High Court’s order dated April 30, 2019, and directed the respondents to pay compensation to the appellants at Rs. 15 per square meter.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling is significant for multiple reasons:

It ensures fair compensation for landowners whose land is acquired for industrial projects.
It reinforces the principle that compensation should be based on market value and comparable transactions.
It sets a precedent for similar cases where landowners challenge inadequate compensation.
It emphasizes the importance of considering location and economic potential when determining compensation.

Conclusion

This Supreme Court ruling is a victory for landowners who often find themselves at a disadvantage in land acquisition proceedings. The decision affirms that compensation should reflect the actual value of the land and not be arbitrarily set. By ordering a higher payout, the Court has ensured justice for the appellants while setting an important legal precedent for future land acquisition cases.

Petitioner Name: Anek Singh & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
Place Of Incident: Mathura.
Judgment Date: 27-11-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: anek-singh-&-ors.-vs-state-of-uttar-prade-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-27-11-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by K.V. Viswanathan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category