/2022 INSC 0851/
/2022 INSC 1051/
  REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9085 of 2022
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.9558 of 2020)
(@ Diary No.16450 of 2020)
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority        …Appellant
Versus
Omvir Singh & Ors.                         …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the High Court
of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   in   First   Appeal   Defective   No.308   of
2015, by which the High Court has rejected the said appeal after
1

a   period   of   approximately   16   years   (as   per   the   appellant,   there
was  a delay  of  26  years) by   which  the  High  Court has  enhanced
the   compensation   payable   to   the   land   owners   to   Rs.297/­   per
sq.yard, NOIDA has preferred the present appeal.   
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell, are as
under:
2.1 That   the   land   in   question   situated   in   Village   Gheja
Tilapatabad,   Tehsil   and   Pargana   Dadri,   District   Ghaziabad   (now
District   Gautam   Budh   Nagar)   was   acquired   for   the   planned
development by the NOIDA, vide Notification issued under Section
4,   dated   22.11.1982.     A   declaration   under   the   provisions   of
Section   6   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   was   issued   on
23.11.1982.   The possession of the acquired land was taken over
by   the   State   on   22.02.1983.     The   Land   Acquisition
Officer/Collector   declared   the   Award   dated   05.09.1983   and
awarded/determined the compensation at Rs.30,000/­ per bigha,
relying upon the sale deed dated 02.11.1982 of certain parcels of
land in the village itself.  The father of the contesting respondents
2

accepted   the   compensation.     At   the   instance   of   the   original
owners – father of the contesting respondents, a Reference under
Section   18   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   raising   objections
against   the   Award   was   made.     The   original   claimants   claimed
compensation @ Rs.60,000/­ per bigha.  On contest, by a detailed
judgment   and   order   dated   04.05.1989,   the   Reference   Court
dismissed the said Reference along with other references.  Review
applications   were   filed   which   came   to   be   dismissed   in   the   year
1998.  That after a period of 16 years from the date of rejection of
the   review   applications   in   the   year   2014/2015,   the   respondents
filed   the   present   first   appeal   before   the   High   Court   and   relied
upon   the   judgment   in   some   other   first   appeals   by   which   the
compensation   was   enhanced   to   Rs.297/­   per   sq.yard.     By   the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has condoned the
delay   of   16   years,   however   it   has   denied   the   interest   during   the
period of delay, and has enhanced the amount of compensation to
Rs.297/­ per  yard.   Hence, the present appeal at the instance of
the NOIDA.
3

3. Learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   NOIDA   has
vehemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred in
entertaining the appeal after a period of 16 years from the date of
dismissal of the review application and after a period of 26 years
from the date of the decision by the Reference Court.
3.1 It is submitted that even otherwise, on merits also in view of
the   subsequent   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Asha   Ram
(Dead)   through   LRs   and   Others   vs.   U.P.   Awas   Avam   Vikas
Parishad   and   Another,   (2022)   2   SCC   567   with   respect   to   the
land   acquisition   of   1982,   this   Hon’ble   Court   has   reduced   the
amount   of   compensation   to   Rs.120/­   per   sq.yard,   the   claimants
shall not be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.297/­ per
sq.yard, as awarded by the High Court.
3.2 It   is   submitted   that   as  such,   in   the   subsequent   decision   in
the   case  of   U.P.   Awas  Avam   Vikas   Parishad   (supra),   this  Court
did   consider   its   earlier   decision   in   the   case   of   Narendra   and
Others   vs.   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   Others,   (2017)   9   SCC
4

426,   by   which   this   Court   for   the   acquisition   with   respect   to   the
nearby   villages   of   the   year   1988,   has   allowed   compensation   @
Rs.297/­   per   sq.yard.     However,   it   is   submitted   that   considering
the   development   which   took   place   between   the   year   1982­
1986/1988   this   Court   in   the   case   of   U.P.   Awas   Avam   Vikas
Parishad   (supra),   did   not   accept   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
claimants for awarding Rs.297/­ per sq.yard and determined the
compensation   for   the   lands   acquired   in   the   year   1982,   at
Rs.120/­ per sq.yard.
4. While   opposing   the   present   appeal,   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   claimants   has   vehemently
submitted   that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the
High Court has not committed any error in condoning the delay of
16/26   years   by   observing   that   the   claimants   are   entitled   to   just
compensation.
4.1 It   is   submitted   that   considering   the   case   of   the   other   land
owners decided vide judgment and order passed in the year 2014
with   respect   to   similar   acquisition   with   respect   to   the   nearby
5

villages,   the   amount   of   compensation   had   been   enhanced   to
Rs.297/­   per   sq.yard.     Following   the   same,   in   the   present   case
the   amount   of   compensation   has   been   awarded   @   Rs.297/­   per
sq.yard,   which   cannot   be   said   to   be   unreasonable   and   the   High
Court has not committed any error.
4.2 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original
claimants   has   heavily   relied   upon   the   following   decisions   of   the
High  Court,  confirmed by  this  Court by  which  the  compensation
has been determined at Rs.297/­ per sq.yard.
INDEX
PARTICULARS
LIST OF JUDGMENTS OF LAND ACQUISITION IN MAKANPUR VILLAGE
Sl.
No. Village Date of
Notifications
&
Compensatio
n (per sq. yd.) Judgment of the
Court Page 
Nos. 
1. Makanpur,
(Vaishali)
Distt.
Ghaziabad,
Tehsil Dadri 12.09.1986/
28.02.1987
[Rs. 297/­] F.A.   No.   910/2000
in   re:   GDA   v.   Kashi
Ram.   [DoJ:
13.11.2014].
SLP   (C)   No.   5815   of
2015,   GDA   v.   Kashi
Ram   &   Ors. 6­26
27­32
6

dismissed   on
05.05.2015
Review   Petition   (C)
No.   2632   of   2015
dismissed   on
06.10.2015
Curative   Petition   (C)
No.   94   of   2016   was
dismissed   on
15.03.2016 33­34
35­37
2. Makanpur,
(Sector   62,
Noida)   Distt.
Gautam
Budh   Nagar,
Tehsil Dadri 15.03.1988
[Rs. 297/­] Judgment   dt.
15.04.2015   of   the
High   Court   in   F.A.
No.   737   in   re:
NOIDA   v.   Surendra
Singh,   awarding
compensation   @   Rs.
135/­   for   Makanpur,
was   set­aside   by   this
Court   vide   judgment
dt.   16.02.2016,
rendered   in   Civil
Appeal   No.   1506­
1517   of   2016   in   re:
Pradeep   Kumar   v.
State   of   U.P.,
reported as (2016) 6
SCC   308   and   the
case   was   remanded
for   consideration
afresh. 
Pursuant   to   remand,
the   High   Court
dismissed   F.A.   No.
737   in   re:   NOIDA   v.
Surendra   Singh 38­95
96­98
99­124
7

along with other First
Appeals   of   Noida  and
allowed   the   First
Appeals   filed   by   the
farmers   (F.A.   No.
522   of   2009
Pradeep   Kumar   vs.
State   of   UP,   being
the   lead   case)   and
awarded
compensation   of   Rs.
297   per   sq.   yd.   vide
final   judgment   dt.
21.04.2016 .     This
has attained finality. 
[Note:   In   the
present   bunch   of
cases,   listed   before
this   Court,   the
compensation   has
been   awarded   @   Rs.
297/­ sq. yard based
on   this   judgment
dated   21.04.2016
only as they pertain
to   the   same
notification   and   the
same   village
(Makanpur)   and
have   arisen   out   of
the   same   Reference
Court order.]
3. Makanpur,
(Vaishali)
Distt.
Ghaziabad,
Tehsil Dadri 12.09.1986/
24.02.1988
[Rs. 297/­] This   Court   in   Civil
Appeal   No.   10429­
10430   of   2017,
Narendra   vs.   State
of   UP,   reported   as 125­
135
8

(2017)   9   SCC   426
has   awarded
compensation   @   Rs.
297/­
4. Makanpur,
(Indirapuram
)   Distt.
Ghaziabad,
Tehsil Dadri  16.08.1988
[Rs. 297/­] This   Court   in   Civil
Appeal No. 16960 of
2017,   Jaiprakash
(D)   V   State   of   U.P.
vide   judgment   dated
24.11.2017,   reported
as   (2020)   11   SCC
770,   increased
compensation   to   Rs.
297/­   (Followed   In
re: Narendra) 136­
137
5. Makanpur,
(Indirapuram
)   Distt.
Ghaziabad,
Tehsil Dadri 16.08.1988
[Rs. 297/­] This Hon’ble Court in
Civil   Appeal   No.
16961   of   2017,   Om
Prakash  vs.   State  of
UP   vide   the   same
judgment   dated
24.10.2017   in   Jai
Prakash   (supra)
increased   the
compensation   to   Rs.
297/­
6. Makanpur,
(Vaishali)
Distt.
Ghaziabad,
Tehsil Dadri 12.09.1986/
28.02.1987
[Rs. 297/­] This   case   had   also
arisen   out   of   the
above­mentioned
Kashi   Ram
judgment   (supra) .
After the judgment in
Kashi   Ram,   an
application   bearing
CMAN   no.   194412   of
9

2016 was filed in one
of   the   First   Appeals
bearing   FA   No.   484
of   2019,   Ghaziabad
Development
Authority   vs.   Trilok
Chand & Ors. , which
was   also   decided
along with the bunch
of   Kashi   Ram
(supra)   for   33%
deduction   as
development   charges
from   the
compensation
determined   at   the
rate   of   Rs.   297/­   sq.
yard,   but   the   same
was rejected. 
SLP   bearing   SLP   (C)
No.   12547/2017,
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority   vs.   Trilok
Chand   &   Ors   was
filed   against   the   said
dismissal,   wherein
while   issuing   notice,
vide   order   dated
28.04.2017,   it   was
especially   recorded
that   the   GDA   was
aggrieved by the non­
deduction   of   33%   as
development charges.
However,   the   said
SLP   was   dismissed
vide   order   dated 138­
139
140­
141
10

03.08.2017.
7. Makanpur,
(Indirapuram
)   Distt.
Ghaziabad,
Tehsil Dadri 16.08.1988
[Rs. 297/­] This   Court   in   Civil
Appeal   No.   9208­
9211   of   2018,
Mangu   Singh   Vs.
State   of   UP,   vide
judgment   dated
10.09.2018,
increased
compensation   to   Rs.
297/­.   142­
144
Making   the   above   submissions   and   relying   upon   the   above
decisions/orders passed by the High Court as well as this Court,
it is prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.
5. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective parties at length.
5.1 So   far   as   the   submissions   made   on   behalf   of   the   appellant
that   the   High   Court   has   erred   in   condoning   the   delay   of   16/26
years  in  preferring  the   appeal  is  concerned,  in  the  peculiar  facts
and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that even
while   enhancing   the   amount   of   compensation   and   entertaining
the appeal, the High Court has denied the interest for the period
of   delay   and   has   exercised   its   discretion   in   favour   of   the
11

claimants, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by
the High Court condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.
5.2 Now   so   far   as   merits   of   the   appeal   and   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   enhancing   the
amount   of   compensation   at   Rs.297/­   per   sq.yard   is   concerned
and the reliance placed upon the decisions of the High Court and
this   Court   referred   to   hereinabove   and   relied   upon   on   behalf   of
the claimants is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted
that in the present case, the acquisition is of the year 1982 and in
all   other   relied   upon   cases   the   acquisition(s)   is/are   of   the   year
1986/88.   In all those cases, where the amount of compensation
has   been   determined   @   Rs.297/­   per   sq.yard,   the   acquisition(s)
is/are   of   the   years   1986/1988   with   respect   to   the   Village
Makanpur and other nearby villages acquired for the development
of   NOIDA/Ghaziabad.     In   the   case   of   Narendra   &   Ors.   (supra),
this   Court   had   enhanced   the   amount   of   compensation   to
Rs.297/­ per sq.yard with respect to the land acquired in Village
Makanpur   and   other   surrounding   villages   acquired   for   the   very
same   project,   but   with   respect   to   the   acquisition   of   the   years
12

1986/1988.     However,   subsequently   in   the   case   of   U.P.   Awas
Avam Vikas Parishad  (supra)   and after considering the decision
of this Court in the case of   Narendra & Ors. (supra)  with respect
to   the   village   Makanpur   and   other   surrounding   villages   situated
at   Village   Prahladgarh,   Village   Jhandapur,   Village   Sahibabad,
Village   Arthala   with   respect   to   the   acquisition   of   the   year   1982,
this   Court   has   determined   the   compensation   at   Rs.120/­   per
sq.yard.  In the said decision, while refusing to accept the claim of
Rs.297/­ per sq.yard as awarded in the case of   Narendra & Ors.
(supra)   which   was   with   respect   to   the   acquisition   of   1988,   this
Court   has   observed   that   the   compensation   determined   on   the
basis   of   the   Notification   5   years   later,   cannot   be   a   yardstick   for
determining the compensation for the land which is acquired five
years   before.     This   Court   has   also   taken   note   of   the   fact   that
between   the   year   1982   and   1987/1988,   development   activities
had been undertaken.   Applying the law laid down by this Court
in   the   case   of   U.P.   Awas   Avam   Vikas   Parishad   (supra)   to   the
present   case,   the   claimants   shall   not   be   entitled   to   the   same
compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after
13

5   years   from   the   date   of   acquisition   in   the   present   case.     As
observed  hereinabove, in  the present  case, Section  4  Notification
had   been   issued   on   22.11.1982   and   the   relied   upon   decisions
with   respect   to   Village   Makanpur   and   other   villages   are   of   the
year   1986/88,   which   as   observed   by   this   Court   in   the   aforesaid
decision in the case of   U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad (supra),
cannot   be   the   basis.     Under   the   above   circumstances,   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
awarding compensation @ Rs.297/­ per sq.yard is unsustainable
and   it   is   held   that   the   original   claimants   shall   be   entitled   to
compensation at the rate of Rs.120/­ per sq.yard.
   
6. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reason   stated   above,   the
present   appeal   succeeds   in   part.     The   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court is hereby modified.   It is ordered
and   directed   that   the   original   claimants   shall   be   entitled   to
compensation   at   the   rate   of   Rs.120/­   per   sq.yard   along   with   all
other   statutory   benefits   and   interest   allowable   under   the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.  However, the claimants
shall   not   be   entitled   to   the   statutory   benefits   including   the
14

interest   under   the   Act,   1894   on   the   enhanced   amount   of
compensation   for   the   delayed   period   in   preferring   the   appeal
before the High Court i.e. from the date of rejection of the review
application till the first appeal was filed before the High Court.
  
Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
No costs.
                                                                                                     
…………………………..J.
        (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………...J.
       (HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15, 2022.
15