Land Acquisition Compensation: Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Enhanced Award

The Supreme Court of India recently decided on a significant land acquisition compensation dispute in the case of Bihari (Dead) through Lrs. and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another. This judgment, delivered on September 23, 2021, involved a long-standing legal battle over fair compensation for landowners whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court ultimately dismissed the special leave petition, citing an unjustified six-year delay in filing the appeal and reaffirming the Allahabad High Court’s decision to enhance compensation from Rs. 6 per square yard to Rs. 28.12 per square yard.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when the government acquired land in Uttar Pradesh under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original landowners, dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs. 6 per square yard awarded by the Reference Court, appealed to the Allahabad High Court. On August 14, 2012, the High Court ruled in favor of the landowners, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 28.12 per square yard.

Despite the High Court’s ruling, the petitioners delayed filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court until September 2018. This six-year delay became a central issue in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-toll-plaza-legality-on-national-highways-impact-on-commuters-and-policy/

Arguments by the Petitioners

• The petitioners contended that the compensation awarded by the High Court was still inadequate and sought a further increase.
• They argued that procedural difficulties and legal complexities caused the delay in filing their appeal.
• They relied on the principle that landowners should be fairly compensated in accordance with prevailing market rates.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The respondents, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, opposed the petition primarily on the grounds of unjustified delay.
• They argued that the compensation awarded by the High Court had already been accepted and withdrawn by the landowners in 2013, rendering the appeal redundant.
• They cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baljeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. & Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, which emphasized the need for timely legal action.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

• The Court observed that the petitioners had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the six-year delay in filing the appeal.
• It reiterated that procedural delays must be justified by compelling reasons, which were absent in this case.
• The Court noted that the compensation awarded by the High Court had been accepted and withdrawn by the landowners in 2013, negating any claim for further revision.
• The judgment emphasized that even on merits, the claim for higher compensation lacked substance, as the amount of Rs. 28.12 per square yard was determined after considering similar land acquisitions.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court cited previous rulings that stressed the importance of adhering to legal timelines. In particular, it referenced:

• Baljeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. & Others vs. State of U.P. and Others: This case reinforced the principle that appeals must be filed within a reasonable timeframe to avoid procedural inefficiencies.
• Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji & Others: This judgment emphasized that condoning delays in filing appeals should be based on justifiable and exceptional circumstances.

The Court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any extraordinary reason to justify their delay, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.

Final Verdict and Order

• The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition.
• The appeal was rejected on the grounds of unexplained delay and lack of merit.
• The Court upheld the compensation of Rs. 28.12 per square yard awarded by the Allahabad High Court.

Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications:

• Reinforcement of Timely Legal Action: The judgment underscores the necessity of filing appeals within legally prescribed timeframes.
• Finality of Accepted Compensation: Once compensation has been withdrawn and accepted by landowners, further legal claims for revision may not be entertained.
• Fair Compensation Principle: The decision reaffirms that compensation enhancements should be determined based on legal and factual considerations, not arbitrary claims.

Overall, this judgment serves as a crucial reminder for landowners and legal practitioners about the importance of timely appeals and the finality of accepted compensation awards.

Petitioner Name: Bihari (Dead) through Lrs. and Others.
Respondent Name: State of U.P. and Another.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 23-09-2021.

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

Download Judgment: bihari-(dead)-throug-vs-state-of-u.p.-and-an-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-23-09-2021.pdf