Supreme Court Rules on Land Compensation: Haryana Landowners Entitled to Fair Market Value

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a crucial judgment in the case of Om Parkash & Others vs. State of Haryana, addressing the issue of fair compensation for land acquisition. The ruling provides significant relief to landowners whose land was acquired for urban development in Panchkula, ensuring that they receive a fair market value for their properties.

The dispute revolved around the compensation awarded for 233.09 acres of land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Devi Nagar, District Ambala, which was acquired for recreational and commercial development under the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The appellants contended that they were entitled to higher compensation similar to that awarded to landowners in neighboring villages.

Background of the Case

The Haryana government issued a Section 4(1) notification on 31.03.1987 to acquire land for Sector 3, Urban Estate, Panchkula. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at a much lower rate than the landowners expected. Dissatisfied, the landowners challenged the compensation before the Reference Court, which increased the compensation to Rs. 31 per sq. yard. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this decision.

The appellants, however, argued that their land should be valued at Rs. 250 per sq. yard, citing a precedent set in Prakash Rani & Others vs. State of Haryana, where a similar acquisition in 1985 led to compensation of Rs. 250 per sq. yard. The appellants thus appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s (Om Parkash & Others) Arguments

• The acquired land is adjacent to the land in Prakash Rani’s case, where compensation was fixed at Rs. 250 per sq. yard.
• The acquired land has high potential value as it is located near developed sectors of Panchkula, alongside National Highway 22 and National Highway 73.
• The Land Acquisition Collector himself acknowledged the potential of the land in his award, describing it as “advantageously situated” with “great potential value.”
• Other neighboring villages such as Kharak Mangoli, Kharak Majri, Nadian, and Fatehpur were awarded higher compensation for similar acquisitions.
• The High Court wrongly concluded that there was no evidence proving the similarity in potential value between the appellants’ land and the land in Prakash Rani’s case.

Respondent’s (State of Haryana) Arguments

• The compensation granted by the Reference Court (Rs. 31 per sq. yard) was reasonable.
• There was no “connecting evidence” demonstrating that the acquired land in Village Devi Nagar had the same potential as the land in Prakash Rani’s case.
• The High Court found no conclusive proof that the appellants’ land had the same business potential as the land near developed sectors of Panchkula.
• The presence of the Ghaggar River and jhuggis (slums) near the acquired land reduced its development potential.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman, ruled in favor of the landowners and increased the compensation to Rs. 250 per sq. yard. The Court made the following key observations:

1. High Court Erred in Assessing Potential Value

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s finding that there was “no connecting evidence” linking the potential value of the appellants’ land to that of Prakash Rani’s case. The Court emphasized that the Land Acquisition Collector’s own report acknowledged the land’s commercial viability:

“The land under acquisition is very advantageously situated and has a great potential value as on the entire length of it on the Western side it is abutting the national highway No. 22 [Ambala-Kalka] and across this road are fully developed sectors 2 and 4 of the prestigious Urban Estate of Panchkula.”

2. Uniform Compensation for Similar Acquisitions

The Court pointed out that landowners in Kharak Mangoli, Kharak Majri, and other neighboring villages had already been awarded compensation at Rs. 250 per sq. yard. It was unfair for the appellants to be given a lower rate when their land had the same potential.

3. Proximity to National Highways and Developed Sectors

The Supreme Court noted that the appellants’ land was not only adjacent to developed sectors but also had access to National Highway No. 22 and National Highway No. 73, making it highly valuable for commercial and residential development.

4. Precedent from Prakash Rani’s Case

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Prakash Rani’s case, where compensation was fixed at Rs. 250 per sq. yard for land acquired in 1985. Since the appellants’ land was acquired in 1987, they could have argued for an additional escalation, but they voluntarily limited their claim to Rs. 250 per sq. yard.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and ruled that:

• The appellants shall be entitled to compensation at Rs. 250 per sq. yard instead of Rs. 31 per sq. yard.
• All statutory benefits (such as interest and solatium) will be applicable.
• The Haryana government must compute and deposit the revised compensation before the Executing Court within four months.

Conclusion

This landmark ruling ensures that landowners are fairly compensated when their land is acquired for public projects. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that:

• Landowners must receive compensation reflecting the true market value of their land.
• Government authorities cannot arbitrarily provide lower compensation when similar land in the same region is valued higher.
• Courts must rely on evidence such as the Land Acquisition Collector’s reports and past judicial precedents while determining compensation.

The judgment serves as a vital precedent for future land acquisition cases, reinforcing the rights of landowners against unfair compensation practices.

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

Download Judgment: Om Parkash & Others vs State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-02-2016-1741852767779.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2016
See all petitions in 2016 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