NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR & ANR.

                         [2022] 15 S.C.R. 609                               609


  NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                A
                                   v.
  RAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA (DEAD)
          THROUGH LEGAL HEIR & ANR.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 8331-8345 of 2022)                       B
                        NOVEMBER 17, 2022
          [M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Delay of 22 years in preferring
first appeals – Acquisition notification was issued in 1982 –
                                                                            C
Reference court determined compensation at Rs.20 per yard – After
a period of 22 years, land owners filed first appeals – By impugned
judgment, the High Court condoned delay of 22 years and enhanced
the amount of compensation to Rs.149 per sq.yard at par with the
land owners in the case of Deo Karan & Ors. by which this Court
with respect to the acquisition of the year 1982 determined the             D
compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard – Held: The land owners were
rightly held entitled to compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard at par
with other land owners whose lands were acquired in the year 1982
– However, submission of the land owners that they are entitled to
compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard relying upon the decision of
                                                                            E
this Court in the case of Nanak (Deceased) cannot be accepted as
the land owners had not preferred the appeals before this Court
and it was NOIDA who had filed these appeals – However, to saddle
with the liability to pay statutory benefits and interest for the delayed
period of 22 years upon the beneficiary/acquiring body would
be a financial burden upon the public body and it may increase              F
the project cost which shall be against the public interests –
Therefore, while condoning the delay and enhancing the amount of
compensation at par with other land owners, the High Court ought
not to have saddled the liability upon the appellant to pay statutory
benefits and the interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act,
                                                                            G
1894 for the delayed period – To that extent the impugned judgment
is modified.
      Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
     HELD: 1. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 05.01.1982. The Reference               H
                             609
610           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     Court determined the compensation at Rs.20/- per sq. yard by
      impugned judgment. After a period of 22 years, the land owners
      preferred the appeals before the High Court. By the impugned
      judgment, the High Court after condoning the delay of 22 years
      in preferring the appeals has enhanced the amount of
      compensation to Rs.149/- per sq.yard at par with the land owners
B
      in the case of Deo Karan & Ors. by which this Court with respect
      to the acquisition of the year 1982 determined the compensation
      at Rs.149/- per sq.yard. Therefore, in the present case, the land
      owners shall be entitled to compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard
      at par with other land owners whose lands were acquired in the
C     year 1982. It cannot be disputed that the land owners, whose
      lands have been acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition
      Act, 1984, are entitled to a reasonable and just compensation at
      par with the other similarly situated land owners. [Para 5][613-
      B-D]
D            2. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the land owners
      that they shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of
      Rs.297/- per sq.yard relying upon the decision of this Court in
      the case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. is concerned, at the
      outset it is required to be noted that as such the land owners
E     have not preferred the appeals before this Court. It is the NOIDA
      who has preferred the present appeals. Under the circumstances
      in the appeals preferred by the NOIDA questioning the
      determination of the compensation at Rs.149/-per sq.yard, the
      land owners cannot be permitted to say that they are entitled to
      the enhanced amount of compensation over and above
F     Rs.149/- per sq.yard. So far as the land owners are concerned,
      the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
      determining and/or awarding the compensation of Rs.149/- per
      sq.yard has attained the finality. Even otherwise as rightly
      observed by the High Court, the land owners are not entitled to
G     the compensation at Rs.297/- per sq.yard considering the decision
      of this Court in the case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. [Paras
      5.1, 5.2][613-E-H]
            New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA)
            v. Deo Karan & Ors. decided on 01.05.2018 in Civil
H           Appeal No.4879 of 2018 – relied on
  NOIDA v. RAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA                                611
               (DEAD) THR. LEGAL HEIR

      Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. v. New OKHLA                            A
      Industrial Development Authority and Another (2019)
      17 SCC 522 – referred to
      3. In the present case, the delay of 22 years can be said to
be a substantial delay. The High Court has erred in awarding
other statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period. To            B
saddle with the liability to pay statutory benefits and interest for
the delayed period upon the beneficiary/acquiring body would be
a financial burden upon the public body and it may increase the
project cost which shall be against the public interests. [Para
5.3][614-C-D]                                                               C
                        Case Law Reference
(2019) 17 SCC 522                referred to               Para 5.1
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8331-
8345 of 2022.                                                               D

       From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Defective Nos. 345/2015 (later
renumbered as First Appeal No. 106/2019), 349/2015 (later renumbered
as First Appeal No. 104/2019), 397/2015 (later renumbered as First
Appeal No. 105/2019), 396/2015 (later renumbered as First Appeal No.        E
103/2019), 103/2006 and dated 18.12.2018 in First Appeal Defective
Nos. 349/2015 (later renumbered as First Appeal No. 104/2019), First
Appeal No. 657/2017, First Appeal Defective Nos. 68/2001, 206/2001,
339/2015 (later renumbered as First Appeal No. 108/2019), 345/2015
(later renumbered as First Appeal No. 106/2019), 396/2015 (later            F
renumbered as First Appeal No. 103/2019), 397/2015 (later renumbered
as First Appeal No. 105/2019), 179/2016 and dated 09.12.2021 in First
Appeal No. 104/2019.
      Sourav Roy, Kaushal Sharma, Prabudh Singh, Advs. for the
Appellant.                                                                  G
      Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Raj Narayan Tewari, Kamal Kant Tewari,
Suraj Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Respondents.


                                                                            H
612             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
      judgment and order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the High Court of
      Judicature at Allahabad in respective First Appeals No.657 of 2017 and
B     other allied First Appeals by which after condoning the delay of 22 years
      in preferring the respective first appeals, the High Court has enhanced
      the amount of compensation for the lands acquired to Rs.149 per sq.yard,
      the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) has preferred
      the present appeals.
C           2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (NOIDA)
      has vehemently submitted that there was a huge delay of 22 years in
      preferring the appeals by the land owners, which ought not to have been
      condoned by the High Court.
            2.1 In the alternative, it is submitted that in any case the acquiring
D     body – NOIDA shall not be saddled with the liability to pay the statutory
      benefits and the interest for 22 years, as it would cause financial burden
      upon the NOIDA and it may affect the project cost.
             3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners have
      submitted that as such the land owners shall be entitled to compensation
E     at Rs.297/- per sq.yard as determined by this Hon’ble Court in the case
      of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. Vs. New OKHLA Industrial
      Development Authority and another decided on 26.9.2018 in Civil
      Appeal No. 10013 of 2018.
             3.1 It is submitted that in any case when it has been found that the
F     land owners shall be entitled to compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard
      considering the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of New Okhla
      Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) VS. Deo Karan &
      Ors. decided on 01.05.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4879 of 2018 and
      when the same was with respect to the acquisition of the year 1982 and
      the land owners are entitled to just compensation, no error has been
G
      committed by the High Court in entertaining the application for condoning
      the delay in preferring the appeals and awarding the compensation at
      par with other land owners whose lands came to be acquired in the year
      1982.

H
  NOIDA v. RAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA                                   613
        (DEAD) THR. LEGAL HEIR [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       4. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at          A
length.
       5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case
the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was issued on 05.01.1982. The Reference Court determined the
compensation at Rs.20/- per sq.yard by impugned judgment dated                 B
15.12.1993. After a period of 22 years the land owners preferred the
present appeals before the High Court. By the impugned common
judgment and order the High Court after condoning the delay of 22 years
in preferring the appeals has enhanced the amount of compensation to
Rs.149/- per sq.yard at par with the land owners in the case of Deo
Karan & Ors. (supra) by which this Court with respect to the acquisition       C
of the year 1982 determined the compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard.
Therefore, in the present case the land owners shall be entitled to
compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard at par with other land owners
whose lands were acquired in the year 1982. It cannot be disputed that
the land owners, whose lands have been acquired under the provisions           D
of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, are entitled to a reasonable and just
compensation at par with the other similarly situated land owners.
       5.1 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the land owners
that they shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per
sq.yard relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nanak           E
(Deceased) through LRS. (supra) is concerned, at the outset it is
required to be noted that as such the land owners have not preferred the
appeals before this Court. It is the NOIDA who has preferred the present
appeals. Under the circumstances in the appeals preferred by the NOIDA
questioning the determination of the compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard,
the land owners cannot be permitted to say that they are entitled to the       F
enhanced amount of compensation over and above Rs.149/- per sq.yard.
So far as the land owners are concerned, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court determining and/or awarding the
compensation of Rs.149/- per sq.yard has attained the finality.
      5.2 Even otherwise as rightly observed by the High Court, the            G
land owners are not entitled to the compensation at Rs.297/- per sq.yard
considering the decision of this Court in the case of Nanak (Deceased)
through LRS. (supra). Nothing was pointed out that how the case of
the land owners was comparable with that of the case of Nanak
                                                                               H
614             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     (Deceased) through LRS. (supra). On the contrary with respect to
      the acquisition of the year 1982, this Hon’ble Court determined the
      compensation at Rs.149/- per sq.yard in the case of Deo Karan &
      Ors.(supra).
              5.3 However, at the same time the acquiring body and the
B     beneficiary of acquisition shall not be saddled with the liability of statutory
      benefits and the interest which may be available under the Land Acquisition
      Act, 1894 for the delayed period. In the present case the delay of 22
      years can be said to be a substantial delay. However, as the claimants
      are held to be entitled the enhanced amount of compensation, in the
      facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court can be said to be
C     justified in condoning the delay. However, at the same time, the High
      Court has erred in awarding other statutory benefits and interest for the
      delayed period. To saddle with the liability to pay statutory benefits and
      interest for the delayed period upon the beneficiary/acquiring body would
      be a financial burden upon the public body and it may increase the project
D     cost which shall be against the public interests. It cannot be disputed
      that the liability towards the statutory benefits and the interest under the
      Act, 1984 would be a huge liability considering the interest at the rate of
      15% per annum, solatium, price rise etc. Therefore, while condoning the
      delay and enhancing the amount of compensation at par with other land
      owners, the High Court ought not to have saddled the liability upon the
E     appellant to pay statutory benefits and the interest payable under the
      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the delayed period. To the aforesaid
      extent the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High
      Court is required to be modified and the present appeals are required to
      be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
F            6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above all these
      Appeals Succeed in part. The impugned common judgment and order
      passed by the High Court passed in respective appeals is hereby partly
      allowed to the aforesaid extent denying the statutory benefits and the
      interest which may be payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for
G     the period between the judgment and award passed by the Reference
      Court i.e. 15.12.1993 till the respective first appeals were filed after
      curing the defects. Meaning thereby the original land owners/claimants
      shall not be entitled to any statutory benefits including the interest payable
      under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced amount of

H
  NOIDA v. RAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA                                   615
        (DEAD) THR. LEGAL HEIR [M. R. SHAH, J.]

compensation for the period between 15.12.1993 till the respective first       A
appeals after curing the defects were filed.
        Present Appeals are Partly Allowed to the aforesaid extent.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
                                                                               B
Devika Gujral                                        Appeals partly allowed.




                                                                               C




                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H