In Civil Appeal No. 7504 of 2023 -SC- Delay in land acquisition appeals may not be fatal, but landowners may lose statutory benefits: Supreme Court
Justice Surya Kant & Justice Dipankar Datta [07-11-2023]

Read Order: Mohar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh Collector & Ors.

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 28, 2023: In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that inordinate delay in filing an appeal in compensatory matters, per se, may not be fatal as the rights and equities between the parties can be well balanced by denying the statutory benefits, such as interest for the delayed period.

In the given case, the appellants' land in village Khora, District Ghaziabad, was part of a larger tract of 902.2046 acres, proposed for acquisition by a notification dated 17.03.1988 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Ultimately, only 337.892 acres, including the appellants' land, were acquired, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued an award, providing compensation at the rate of Rs.70 per sq. yard. Subsequently, the appellants, along with other landowners, filed references under Section 18 of the Act. The Xth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, in an award dated 06.04.1998, partially accepted the references and increased the compensation to Rs.106 per sq. yard. Following this, several landowners, including the appellants, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking further enhancement of compensation.

The appellants, however, failed to file an appeal before the High Court within a reasonable time. Subsequently, they initiated the first appeals in 2011, facing a delay of 12 years and 353 days. Seeking condonation of the delay, the appellants cited reasons such as illiteracy and poverty, which hindered their ability to arrange the required Court Fee. Despite their plea, the High Court refused to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the first appeal(s) filed by the appellants.

Meanwhile, the batch of first appeals preferred by other land owners, came to be decided, wherein the High Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.130 per sq. yard.

The division bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, acknowledged that certain landowners, who remained discontent with the compensation rate set by the High Court, had approached this Court. A coordinating bench, through an order dated 12.12.2017, had partially granted relief in those appeals.

Further, the bench opined that the appellants had the right to seek parity with their co-villagers in receiving compensation for their acquired land.

Top of Form

“All that the High Court ought to have emphatically denied to the late-comers was the benefit of interest including on the solatium, under Section 34 of the Act for the period from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court till the filing of the first appeals,” observed the division bench.

Also, considering the appellants' plea for enhanced compensation at the rate set by the High Court for the land in village Makanpur, the bench noted that this argument was explicitly presented before the High Court when their initial appeals were adjudicated on 04.07.2016. The High Court decisively dismissed this claim, opting for a lower rate of Rs.130 per sq. yard for the land in village Khora. In a subsequent appeal, this Court partially accepted the landowners' claim for village Khora, increasing the compensation to Rs.150 per sq. yard. Essentially, the plea for parity between the acquired lands of village Khora and Makanpur was implicitly rejected by this Court. Consequently, the bench found no merit in asserting that the appellants should receive compensation at par with the landowners of village Makanpur.

The bench noted that there was another plausible reason to reject the appellant's claim for the higher rate of Rs.297 per sq. yard. The delay of nearly 13 years in filing their first appeals was condoned solely to achieve parity among similarly situated landowners under Article 14 of the Constitution. Granting the appellants compensation higher than their counterparts, despite the latter being diligent in pursuing their remedy promptly, would result in hostile discrimination.

Having made this determination, the appeals were allowed in part, and the appellants were deemed entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.150 per sq. yard for their acquired land. However, it was clarified that the compensation amount would not include statutory interest, including on solatium, at the rate prescribed under Section 34 of the Act for the period from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act until the filing of the respective first appeals before the High Court.