# REDDY VEERANA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2022] 3 S.C.R. 663
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-05-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3636 of 2022
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, J. K. Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/reddy-veerana-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-36018
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 4, 11, 17 - Compensation -
Grant of - Large piece of land allotted to DLF, including the
scheduled piece of land of the appellant for which, the decree of
permanent injunction was in operation - Scheduled piece of land
subsequently acquired - High Court determined compensation at
the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per square meter as per circle rate and
also ordered deduction of development charges to the extent of 50%
- On appeal, held: Determination of the compensation has to be
made by taking into consideration the circle rate which was
determined as per the market value - High Court rightly determined
compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per square meter as per
circle rate - As regards deduction of development charges to the
extent of 50% made by High Court, the High Court did not take
into consideration all the factors encircling the issue and routinely
proceeded with the maximum deduction of 50% development charge
- Scheduled piece of land is a costly land, being situated at the
centre of development of authority, has commercial use, and even a
mall has been constructed on it - Without acquisition, the piece of
land belonging to appellant was transferred to DLF and the
acquisition was made subsequently - Possession of scheduled piece
of land, though taken long back in year 2004-2005, but till date,
the appellant has not been paid the compensation and is litigating
before courts even up to subsequent rounds - In view thereof,
deduction of development charges to the extent of 50% by High
Court cannot be sustained - Also, the civil right of appellant is
violated in breach of Art. 300-A - In view thereof, respondents
directed to compute the amount of compensation by taking the circle
rate of Sector -18, i.e., Rs. 1,10,000/-per square meter - Judgment
of the High Court directing 50% deduction towards development
charge set aside, however, the amount of solatium of 30% is payable
- Statutory interest on the amount of compensation to be payable
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 663
663
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
@ 9% from the date of taking over of possession, for a period of
one year, thereafter, @ 15% p.a. to be paid, and in addition thereto,
3% penal interest to be paid - Constitution of India - Art. 300A.
Compensation - Determination of - Held: Compensation can
be determined by taking into consideration the circle rate which
has been determined as per the market value - Market value of a
property is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing
seller for it, taking into account its current condition, all existing
advantages, and potential possibilities, while excluding any benefit
resulting from the implementation of the scheme for which the
property is compulsorily acquired - Thus, the market value is to be
determined in the light of price paid by the purchaser of similar
land in the neighbourhood of the land in question and in cases,
where no records for such transaction/purchase is available, the
minimum statutory value in accordance with Stamp Act must be taken
as market value for circle rate - In no event, the compensation can
be paid at a rate lesser than that of market value as determined for
the purpose of payment of stamp duty under Stamp Act.
Compensation - Determination of - Deduction of development
charges - Quantum of - Held: There is no straight jacket formula
to arrive at the quantum of deduction of development charge - It
must be assessed based on the facts of the individual case after due
consideration of all the factors, the nature of land to be acquired,
the extent of area to be acquired, the extent of development in the
adjoining land as well as land proposed to be acquired, the
commercial potentiality and so on.
Interest: Nature of - Held: Is a consideration paid either for
the use of money or forbearance from demanding it after it has
fallen due - Interest, whether it is statutory or otherwise, represents
the profit, the creditor may have mad

## Text

_Characters 0–39,766 of 77,096. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39766 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
663
REDDY VEERANA
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3636 of 2022)
MAY 05, 2022
[VINEET SARAN AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 4, 11, 17 - Compensation -
Grant of - Large piece of land allotted to DLF, including the
scheduled piece of land of the appellant for which, the decree of
permanent injunction was in operation - Scheduled piece of land
subsequently acquired - High Court determined compensation at
the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per square meter as per circle rate and
also ordered deduction of development charges to the extent of 50%
- On appeal, held: Determination of the compensation has to be
made by taking into consideration the circle rate which was
determined as per the market value - High Court rightly determined
compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per square meter as per
circle rate - As regards deduction of development charges to the
extent of 50% made by High Court, the High Court did not take
into consideration all the factors encircling the issue and routinely
proceeded with the maximum deduction of 50% development charge
- Scheduled piece of land is a costly land, being situated at the
centre of development of authority, has commercial use, and even a
mall has been constructed on it - Without acquisition, the piece of
land belonging to appellant was transferred to DLF and the
acquisition was made subsequently - Possession of scheduled piece
of land, though taken long back in year 2004-2005, but till date,
the appellant has not been paid the compensation and is litigating
before courts even up to subsequent rounds - In view thereof,
deduction of development charges to the extent of 50% by High
Court cannot be sustained - Also, the civil right of appellant is
violated in breach of Art. 300-A - In view thereof, respondents
directed to compute the amount of compensation by taking the circle
rate of Sector -18, i.e., Rs. 1,10,000/-per square meter - Judgment
of the High Court directing 50% deduction towards development
charge set aside, however, the amount of solatium of 30% is payable
- Statutory interest on the amount of compensation to be payable
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 663
663
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
@ 9% from the date of taking over of possession, for a period of
one year, thereafter, @ 15% p.a. to be paid, and in addition thereto,
3% penal interest to be paid - Constitution of India - Art. 300A.
Compensation - Determination of - Held: Compensation can
be determined by taking into consideration the circle rate which
has been determined as per the market value - Market value of a
property is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing
seller for it, taking into account its current condition, all existing
advantages, and potential possibilities, while excluding any benefit
resulting from the implementation of the scheme for which the
property is compulsorily acquired - Thus, the market value is to be
determined in the light of price paid by the purchaser of similar
land in the neighbourhood of the land in question and in cases,
where no records for such transaction/purchase is available, the
minimum statutory value in accordance with Stamp Act must be taken
as market value for circle rate - In no event, the compensation can
be paid at a rate lesser than that of market value as determined for
the purpose of payment of stamp duty under Stamp Act.
Compensation - Determination of - Deduction of development
charges - Quantum of - Held: There is no straight jacket formula
to arrive at the quantum of deduction of development charge - It
must be assessed based on the facts of the individual case after due
consideration of all the factors, the nature of land to be acquired,
the extent of area to be acquired, the extent of development in the
adjoining land as well as land proposed to be acquired, the
commercial potentiality and so on.
Interest: Nature of - Held: Is a consideration paid either for
the use of money or forbearance from demanding it after it has
fallen due - Interest, whether it is statutory or otherwise, represents
the profit, the creditor may have made if he had used the money or
from the loss, he may have suffered because he could not use the
amount.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The determination of the compensation has to
be made by taking into consideration the circle rate which has
been determined as per the market value. The market value of a
property is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
665
seller for it, taking into account its current condition, all existing
advantages, and potential possibilities when led out in the most
advantageous manner, while excluding any benefit resulting from
the implementation of the scheme for which the property is
compulsorily acquired. Therefore, the market value is to be
determined in the light of price paid by the purchaser of similar
land in the neighbourhood of the land in question and in cases,
where no records for such transaction/purchase is available, the
minimum statutory value in accordance with Stamp Act must be
taken as market value for circle rate. [Para 21][686-B-D]
Bhopendra Singh and Others v. Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad and Others 2005 (2) Uttaranchal Decision,
295 - approved.
1.2 The order passed by District Magistrate, notifying the
circle rate to be Rs. 1,10,000/- per sq. mt. as applicable on
commercial properties, residential properties etc., situated in
Noida is on record. Further, the nature of acquired land is also
not in dispute for the reason that, NOIDA while contesting the
Suit filed by appellant seeking permanent injunction, itself
admitted that the land has been determined for use of commercial
purposes and hence, it is a valuable land. This fact is also fortified
by the Revenue Inspector's report, submitted in compliance of
interim order passed by High Court in Writ Petition No. 75152
of 2005. By the said report, it is apparent that, on spot the land
of Khasra No. 422 and 427 was converted into a part of Sector
18, for which demarcation is not possible because of absence of
any fixed identification points for demarcation since the land is
fully developed. Thus, NOIDA cannot turn around to say in this
case that the land is either agricultural or at best residential.
[Para 22][686-E-H]
1.3 With regard to determination of the compensation in
the instant case, the judgment of Bhopendra Singh's case, wherein
the circle rate showing market value assessed by the Collector
for the purpose of registration of instrument of sale was made
valid. The said judgment was not interfered with by this Court
thereafter. In the case of the land owner itself, the High Court by
order dated 10.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 75152 of 2005,
REDDY VEERANA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to determine the
compensation according to the law as laid down in judgment
rendered in Bhopendra Singh's case, which is sustained by this
Court. Therefore, the issue of basis of determination of
compensation has been settled inter--party and also un-interfered
by this Court. Now, on the said issue, relying upon the judgment
of Anil Kumar Srivastava's case cannot be interfered with in this
case. In no event, the compensation can be paid at a rate lesser
than that of market value as determined for the purpose of
payment of stamp duty under Stamp Act. [Para 25][689-G-H; 690A-B]
1.4 The land in dispute was not only designated for
commercial use, rather it was also declared to be part of industrial
development plan area. After development, even a mall has been
constructed on it. The High Court in the impugned order has
rightly determined payment of compensation at the rate of
Rs. 1,10,000/- per square meter as per circle rate. The findings
of High Court for grant of compensation with rate Rs. 1,10,000/-
per sq. Mt is upheld. [Para 26][690-B-D]
1.5 With regard to deduction of development charges to
the extent of 50% made by High Court, there is no straight jacket
formula to arrive at the quantum of deduction of development
charge and same must be assessed based on the facts of the
individual case after due consideration of all the factors which
might affect such quantum. The High Court did not take into
consideration all the factors encircling the issue and routinely
proceeded with the maximum deduction of 50% development
charge. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the
High Court has inter-alia highlighted the glaring mischiefs played
by NOIDA in the whole acquisition proceedings but at the same
time, it has failed to accord a substantial reason for maximum
deduction of development charges. It is not for the first time that
NOIDA is in cross-roads before this Court for playing hand-inglove with large developers. [Para 27][690-D-G]
1.6 It is uncontroverted from the material available on
record that, the scheduled piece of land was allotted by NOIDA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
667
to respondent no. 7 in absence of formal acquisition, whereafter,
the said scheduled land was developed in the line of commercial
hub and even a mall was constructed on it. Hence, the quantum
of deduction of development charges should have been evaluated
by High Court from the contextual perspective of all the relevant
factors, which clearly has not been done in the instant case. [Para
28][690-G-H; 691-A]
1.7 The general factors that are to be taken into
consideration for deciding the quantum of deduction of
development charges, majorly include the nature of land to be
acquired, the extent of area to be acquired, the extent of
development in the adjoining land as well as land proposed to be
acquired, the commercial potentiality and so on. Therefore,
deduction of development charge in the instant case should have
been made while considering the said factors. However, it is made
clear that this observation is being made in peculiar facts of the
instant case and not in general. [Para 29][693-F-G]
1.8 As per the stand taken by NOIDA, the scheduled piece
of land is a costly land, being situated at the centre of development
of authority and has commercial use. On spot, the demarcation
was not possible because the land was fully developed. In the
backdrop, without acquisition, the piece of land belonging to
appellant was transferred to respondent no. 7. The acquisition
was made subsequently in view of the observations made by the
District Court confirming the decree of permanent injunction for
the said piece of land. At the time of taking over of possession,
the amount of compensation was not made and now, the appellant
is running from pillar to post to receive the adequate
compensation. Even after settling the dispute for payment of
compensation at the circle rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- inter--party in
the previous round of litigation, the NOIDA in its own volition
neither determined the compensation nor paid to the appellant.
The possession of scheduled piece of land, though taken long
back in year 2004--2005, but till date, the appellant has not been
able to reap the fruits of compensation and kept litigating before
REDDY VEERANA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
courts even up to subsequent rounds. Thus, deduction made to
extent of 50% in by High Court cannot be sustained. [Para
30][694-A-D]
1.9 The compensation at the circle rate of Rs. 1,10,000/-
per sq. meter be payable to the appellant. On perusal, it is clear
that if amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or
before taking possession of the land, interest @ 9% p.a. leviable
from the time of taking of possession until it shall have been so
paid or deposited. It further provides that if the amount of
compensation has not been paid or deposited within one year,
the interest would be payable @ 15% p.a. on expiry of the period
of one year. On facts, the land was given initially in the year 2003
to respondent No.7 and the acquisition was made subsequently.
The additional award was passed on 31.1.2011 after a delay of
five years from the date of taking over of possession. The amount
was deposited in the year 2017 by a delay of approximately 14
years. In the peculiar facts of this case, the civil right of appellant
is violated in breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Such action of the NOIDA clearly amounts to constitutional tort.
[Para 31][694-D-H; 695-A-C]
1.10 In addition to the statutorily paid interest, the additional
amount of penal interest must be paid in place of shifting the date
for determination of the amount of compensation or to determine
the compensation as per 2013 Act. The nature of interest is
essentially a consideration paid either for the use of money or
forbearance from demanding it after it has fallen due. Interest,
whether it is statutory or otherwise, represents the profit, the
creditor may have made if he had used the money or from the
loss, he may have suffered because he could not use the amount.
Therefore, the amount of compensation be payable along with
statutory interest, as directed by the High Court and 3% penal
interest, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. [Para
32][696-C-F]
1.11 The respondents are directed to compute the amount
of compensation by taking the circle rate of Sector -18, i.e., Rs.
1,10,000/- per square meter; that the judgment of the High Court
directing 50% deduction towards development charge is set aside;
that the respondents are directed not to make any deduction
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
669
towards the development charge while computing/calculating the
amount of compensation as per circle rate; that as directed by
the High Court, the amount of solatium of 30% in terms of Section
23(2) of 1894 Act is also payable; that the statutory interest on
the amount of compensation to be payable @ 9% from the date
of taking over of possession, i.e., February, 2005 for a period of
one year, thereafter, @ 15% p.a. be paid as per the proviso of
Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and that in addition
to the said statutory interest, 3% penal interest is further directed
to be paid in the peculiar facts of this case. [Para 33][696-G-H;
697-A-C]
Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1; Anil Kumar
Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2004) 8 SCC 671 : [2004] 3
Suppl. SCR 675; R. Unnikrishnan and Another v. V. K.
Mahanudevan and Others (2014) 4 SCC 434 : [2014]
1 SCR 350; Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar
and Land Acquisition Officer (1991) 4 SCC 506 : [1991]
1 Suppl. SCR 172; Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal
(2011) 6 SCC 47 : [2011] 8 SCR 520; Kasturi and Ors.
v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 : [2002] 4 Suppl.
SCR 117; Kalyani (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. v.
Sulthan Bathery Municipality & Ors. Civil Appeal No.
3189 of 2022 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
referred to
Para 13
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 675
referred to
Para 15
[2014] 1 SCR 350
referred to
Para 19
[1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 172
referred to
Para 28
[2011] 8 SCR 520
referred to
Para 29
[2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 117
referred to
Para 29
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3636
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2272 of 2019.
REDDY VEERANA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
With
Civil Appeal No. 3637 of 2022
Balbir Singh, ASG, Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., P.B. Suresh, Vipin Nair,
Agnish Aditya, Arindam Ghosh, Kshitij Mittal, Sumeer Jain, Angad
Sandhu, Naman Tandon, Samarvir Singh, Love Kumar Gupta, Deepesh
Raj, Soayib Qureshi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Balbir Singh, ASG, Ravindra Kumar Raizada, AAG, Sumeer Jain,
Angad Sandhu, Naman Tandon, Samarvir Singh, Love Kumar Gupta,
Deepesh Raj, Soayib Qureshi, Avnish Pandey, Ms. Alka Sinha, Anuvrat
Sharma, Praveen Bahadur, Ms. Ruby Ahuja, Vishal G., Ms. Peepti Sarin,
Vasu Singh, Tappan Preet Hora, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Advs. for
the Respondents.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Civil Appeals arise out of the judgment dated
28.10.2021, passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2272 of 2019 filed by appellant Reddy
Veerana (co-petitioner), by which, the High Court intervened in the award
of compensation dated 31.01.2011, passed by Additional District
Magistrate (Land Acquisition) for acquired land of appellant, admeasuring
2.18.00 bighas of Khasra Nos. 422 and 427, situated in village Chhalera
Bangar and disposed-off the petition.
3. Assailing the said order, both the parties are before this Court.
Briefly stated, facts are that vide sale deed dated 24.04.1997, appellant
along-with two others purchased the scheduled property land in Khasra
No. 422 admeasuring 3 bighas 9 biswas and in Khasra No. 427
admeasuring 2 bighas 4 biswas and 10 biswansi (i.e., total of 13757.8 sq.
meters) in village Chhalera Bangar, Gautam Buddh Nagar district for a
total sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (One crore only). However,
through the prior land acquisition proceedings in year 1979-1980, a portion
of the purchased land to the extent of 1 bigha 5 biswas 15 biswansi in
Khasra No. 427 and 1 bigha in Khasra No. 422 was acquired by State.
Thus, the property which remained unacquired with the appellant was 2
bigha 18 biswa 10 biswansi (i.e. total of 7400 sq. meters) in both the
aforesaid khasra numbers (in short be called as scheduled piece of land).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
671
4. As is borne out of the record, pursuant to purchase of land by
appellant, since early 2000s, employees of NOIDA were interfering with
the peaceful possession of the appellant (land-owner), which resultantly
led into Civil Suit No. 416/1998 being filed by appellant for permanent
injunction against NOIDA, with a prayer to not interfere with the
possession. For the purpose to demonstrate the utility and value of land,
the averments made in the written statement filed by NOIDA inter-alia
categorically contended, were as thus:
".....the land in dispute is situated in the centre of development
of authority and the use of land has been prescribed to be
used for commercial. Therefore, this land is very costly.
Since.........the land of village Chhalera Bangar under the
provisions of Section 2 of Act No. 6 of 1976 is declared as
industrial area and construction on this land without the
permission of defendant is illegal."
(emphasis supplied)
5. The Trial Court, after due deliberation on the contentions raised
by both the parties, vide order dated 16.02.2000, partly decreed the suit
in favour of appellant (Reddy Veerana) herein and restrained NOIDA
from taking possession of land which was not the subject matter of the
prior acquisition in year 1979-1980. Further, the Court also declared the
appellant as the owner of the remaining portion of land of Khasra No.
422 and 427 which was purchased vide sale deed as mentioned earlier.
6. Being aggrieved by aforesaid order, NOIDA preferred Civil
Appeal No. 61 of 2020 before District Judge, which also came to be
dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2001 with certain observations made
in the following manner -
"The lower court has not committed any error in decreeing
the suit of permanent injunction of plaintiff produced in regard
to the land admeasuring 02-09-00 bigha of Khasra no. 422
and land admeasuring 00-09-10 bigha of Khasra No. 427 of
village Chhalera Bangar, Tehsil Dadri, District - Gautam
Buddh Nagar against appellant. The defendant/appellant even
now is free to acquire the remaining land of the aforesaid
Khasra Nos. but until and unless the land is not acquired, till
then the decree of permanent injunction issued by the lower
court shall remain applicable."
(emphasis supplied)
REDDY VEERANA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
The judgment and decree granting permanent injunction passed
by District Judge, confirming the order of Trial Court has not been assailed
and therefore, it has become final. Moreover, despite the decree of
permanent injunction being operative, NOIDA in the year 2003 floated a
tender for development of large piece of land including the remaining
piece of land of Khasra No. 422 and Khasra No. 427 which is the subject
matter of this case. The said tender was widely advertised by NOIDA
in various newspapers and subsequently, nine reputed developers including
MGF, Unitech, Sun City, Sahara India and Omex purchased the bid
documents. It was a known fact that out of the large piece of the land,
the scheduled piece of land was in dispute and hence, all the reputed
developers abstained from bidding for the tender. Be that as it may, on
the closing date of tender i.e. 9.03.2004, only one tender on behalf of
respondent No. 7 herein, i.e., M/s DLF Universal Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as DLF) was received and evaluated by Technical Committee,
whereafter, respondent No. 7 quoted the rate and qualified in the said
tender. Consequently, the large piece of land as mentioned above was
allotted to DLF vide order dated 12.04.2004, including the scheduled
piece of land for which, the decree of permanent injunction was in
operation.
7. After the allotment of land to respondent No. 7, a preliminary
notification dated 02.09.2005 was issued by NOIDA under Section 4(1)
read with Section 17(1) of the 'Land Acquisition Act, 1894' (hereinafter
referred to as 1894 Act), followed by a notification dated 22.11.2005
under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, to acquire the scheduled piece of land
measuring 0.7400 hectare in Khasra No. 422 and 427 at village Chhalera
Bangar, Dadri, NOIDA. The possession of the scheduled piece of land
was taken on 20.01.2006 as per order passed by Additional District
Collector (Land Acquisition) Noida.
8. The aforesaid notifications were challenged by the appellant
before High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
75152 of 2005 and Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 70088 of 2006.
As per interim orders of the High Court in the aforesaid petitions, Revenue
Inspector visited the scheduled piece of land on 05.08.2008 and in his
report noted as under -
"In accordance to the spot, the land of Khasra No. 422 and
427 which in present has been converted in Sector 18 in
regards to demarcation, has no identification spot because
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
673
the NOIDA authority has been fully developed and in absence
of any fixed identification, demarcation of land is not
possible."
The High Court vide order dated 10.12.2009 disposed-off the
matter and held as under -
"Perusal of record shows that the notification under Section
4 of the Act was issued on 2.9.2005 and in this notification
under Section 4 of the Act a direction was also issued under
Section17(4) of the Act to the effect that the provision of
Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply. A notification under
Section 6 of the Act as contained in Annexure No. 2 to the
instant writ petition was issued on 22.11.2005 and the urgency
clause was invoked under Section 17(1) of the Act.
Mr. S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the petitioners made a
statement at bar that the petitioners do not press the relief
claimed in the instant writ petitions and only pray that their
compensation be determined and be paid to them in
accordance with law and also keeping in mind the Judgement
of High Court of Uttaranchal rendered in Bhopendra Singh
and others Vs. Awas Vikas Parishad and others, reported in
2005(2) Uttaranchal Decision, 295. According to him this
statement is being made keeping in mind the Commissioner's
report that the land cannot be demarcated and the petitioners
cannot get back the land.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, but without
prejudice to the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed
of with the direction to the SLAO to determine the
compensation according to law as laid down in the judgement
rendered in Bhopendra Singh and others (Supra). The
payment of the compensation shall be made preferably within
a period of one month. However, it is further provided that if
as per policy of NOIDA any land is to be given to the
petitioners, same shall be expedited for rehabilitation of the
petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
REDDY VEERANA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
It may not be out of context to state that, the appellant (landowner) gave the concession before the Court in view of the observation
made by Revenue Inspector in the report that the land was fully developed
by NOIDA and demarcation was not possible. Therefore, the direction
for determination of compensation as per the judgment rendered in the
case of 'Bhopendra Singh and Others Vs. Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad and Others, 2005 (2) Uttaranchal Decision, 295; MANU/
UC/0270/2005' was only prayed.
9. Being aggrieved, NOIDA challenged the aforesaid judgment in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20196-20197 of 2010 (later admitted
and converted into Civil Appeal No. 731-732 of 2013). During the pendency
of the aforesaid appeal, this Court vide order dated 10.01.2011, issued
notice while observing that 'in the meanwhile, there shall be stay of
operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2009 passed
by High Court'. It is the specific case of the appellant (land-owner) that
NOIDA did not even inform the Court about passing of award under
Section 11 of the 1894 Act during the pendency of the said appeal.
10. Be that as it may, after almost delay of 5 years, an award
dated 31.01.2011 was passed by Additional District Magistrate (Land
Acquisition), NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar, under Section 11 of 1894
Act. In the said award, the compensation was determined by the authority
in the following manner -
"...... a decision was reached in the meeting on the basis of
general acquisition process to pay them compensation at the
rate of Rs. 181.87 per square yard on the basis of sell letter
dated 04.02.2005 for the land sold in village Sadarpar of
this circle, whose borders touch the borders of village
Chhalera Bangar against the land sold in village Chhalera
three years before the advertisement of this Act on 02.09.2005
under Section 4(1), 17 and were not found suitable for getting
compensation, the approval of which was given by
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut through his official
letter No. 452/891/2004-06 dated 18.01.2006."
Regarding the pending litigation before this Court, the award dealt
with the same as under -
"With reference to the disposal of Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 75152/2005 - Vishnu Pradhan Vs. NOIDA & Ors., Hon.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
675
High Court of Allahabad on 10.12.2009 ordered to dispose
the compensation on the basis of minimum determined circle
rate by the District Collectors as per the order passed by the
Hon. High Court, Uttaranchal, against the petition filed for
compensation, determination and payment by Bhopendra
Singh and Others Vs. Resident Development Council and
Others, but against the orders of Hon. High Court, a Special
Petition No. CC 20196-20197/2010 was filed in the Hon.
Supreme Court of India by Naveen Okhla Udyog Vikas
Pradhikaran, Noida versus Vishnu Pradhan and others, in
which the enforcement of the orders of Hon. High Court dated
10.12.2009 was stopped on 10.01.2001. Due to the
postponement order issued by Hon. Supreme Court of India,
the determined rate of Rs. 181.87 per square yard remains
effective for the uncontracted lands as per the decision taken
in the said meeting convened under the chairmanship of
District Collector, Gautam Buddh Nagar and the decision of
acquired land will be taken on this basis only."
Finally, the award was passed in following terms subject to the
decision of this court and compensation was computed as under -
"Therefore, for the 0.828 ha, land acquired by New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority for planned industrial
development in village Chhalera Bangar, Pargana Dadri,
Tehsil Dadri, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar, the
compensation is Rs. 18,00,481.00 and 30% solatium payable
on it amounts to Rs. 5,40,144.00 and 12% payable on the
compensatory amount is Rs. 53,866.00 which amounts to a
total of Rs. 23,94,491.00 (Rupees Twenty-Three Lacs NinetyFour Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-One only) and the
decision upon it is being declared today on 31.01.2011. This
decision will be as per the obedience of the order issued by
the Hon. Supreme Court of India against Special Petition No.
CC 20197-20197/2010 - NOIDA versus Vishnu Pradhan and
others."
(emphasis supplied)
Thereafter, on 04.11.2015, the appeal of NOIDA before this Court
was dismissed for being devoid of merits.
REDDY VEERANA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
11. It is also relevant to note that, vide order dated 04.11.2015,
this Court also dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 1107 of 2009, which assailed
the judgment of High Court of Uttaranchal in Bhopendra Singh (supra).
In view of the aforesaid order, Deputy Chief Executive of NOIDA
addressed a letter dated 11.05.2016 to Additional District Magistrate
(Land Acquisition) to comply with the order of High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad and Supreme Court of India. In the meanwhile, the appellant
herein preferred representations before the concerned authority and
thereby sought compensation in terms of the aforesaid orders passed by
this Court, however, in vain. The District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh
Nagar on 08.01.2018, dismissed the representation of the appellant (landowner) and observed as under -
"In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that when the matter was
pending adjudication before the Hon. Supreme Court, then
in such circumstances, the award/decision dated 31.01.2011
was not be announced/passed by then Additional District
Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar
and the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition),
Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in the matter has to wait for
the final orders of Hon. Supreme Court. The award/decision
dated 31.01.2011 of Additional District Magistrate (Land
Acquisition) is not the compliance of order dated 10.12.2009
passed by Hon. High Court and stay order dated 10.01.2011
passed by Hon. Supreme Court, but because this award/
decision has already been passed/declared by then Additional
District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Noida, Gautam Buddh
Nagar, therefore, legally it is not appropriate to dispose-off
this point at the level of District Magistrate."
Being aggrieved by the order passed by District Magistrate, the
appellant preferred Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1841-1842 of 2018 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 731-732 of 2013. This Court vide order dated
22.10.2018, dismissed the aforesaid contempt as withdrawn and granted
liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before the High Court.
12. In view of the order passed in Contempt Petition by this Court,
the appellant (land-owner) again approached the High Court in Writ
Petition No. 2272 of 2019, wherein the High Court vide impugned
judgment and order dated 28.10.2021, with regard to question of title of
appellant on the scheduled land, the High Court held as under -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
677
"31. We would first be dealing with the issue as to whether
the writ petition filed by the sole petitioner to claim
compensation of land measuring 2.18.00 bighas of
Khasra Nos. 422 and 427 is maintainable. The
respondents have produced a copy of the order dated
12.09.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Gautam Buddha Nagar to deny acceptance of
compromise and accordingly, allegations have been
made about suppression of aforesaid fact. It is also that
no compromise deed or decree has been issued by the
competent Court and for that reason, one co-owner of
the land, namely, Vishnu Pradhan contested the case
separately to challenge the acquisition of the land. We,
however, find that petitioner has produced a copy of
the Khatauni of Fasli Year 1407- 1412 when the land
was recorded solely in the name of the petitioner. It was
pursuant to the order dated 01.09.2010 in Suit No. 2441
of 2010 under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1996
and the judgment of Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated
17.06.2010 to record entire land of Khasra Nos. 422
and 427 in the name of the present petitioner. A copy of
the Khatauni was submitted alongwith the
supplementary affidavit, thereby the objection on
maintainability of the writ petition in the hands of the
petitioner is not tenable rather the petitioner became
sole owner of the property in dispute after an order
under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act and the
judgment of the Civil Court dated 17.06.2010. His name
was accordingly entered in the khatauni. The
respondents have ignored the subsequent orders by
which land was entered in the name of the petitioner
alone."
Further, on the aspect of whether the schedule property was an
agriculture land or commercial land, the High Court referred to the
pleadings of respondents themselves in Suit No. 416 of 1998 and provisions
of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976, to conclude that the
schedule land was a commercial property and the compensation shall be
determined accordingly.
REDDY VEERANA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Regarding the deduction towards development charges, the High
Court held as follows -
"63. The respondents were expected to take into account the
circle rate of the land in question and thereupon to make
reasonable deductions towards the development which
may be between 20% and 50% as per the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Viluben Jhalejar
Contractor (supra).
64.
If the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court
in the judgment cited above is applied, then
determination of compensation should have been made
after taking the circle rate of Rs.1,10,000/- per square
meter of the land in question and thereupon to make
deduction towards the development. The development
charges can be maximum to the extent of 50% of it and
accordingly
respondents
should
have
taken
Rs.55,000/- per square meter to be the market value of
the land.
65.
The official respondents while doing it could have
noticed that the land was allotted to respondent no.7
one and half years back prior to the notification under
Section 4 of the Act of 1894. It was by the allotment
letter dated 12.04.2004. The circle rate was determined
thereupon on 16.04.2004. The allotment of land to the
respondent no.7 was 8 times bigger than the land of the
petitioner and it was one and half years back. While
applying the judgment of the Apex Court, the market
value should have been taken @ Rs.55,000/- per square
meter. However, due to the interim order of the Apex
Court dated 11.01.2011 against the judgment dated
10.12.2009, the respondents did not determine the
compensation as per the direction given by this Court."
And lastly, the High Court disposed-off the petition with the
following directions -
"69. Accordingly, we find reasons to cause interference in
theaward dated 31.01.2011 and direct the respondents
to determine the compensation as under -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
679
1.
The respondents are directed to take into consideration
the circle rate of Sector - 18 since 16.04.2004 given in
Annexure - 7 of supplementary counter affidavit filed
by the respondent no. 5. It was Rs. 1,10,000/- per square
meter for Sector - 18.
2.
After making 50% deduction towards the development
charges, it would come to Rs. 55,000/- per square meter
and accordingly the compensation would be determined
on the aforesaid rate for the land admeasuring 2.18
bighas.
3.
The addition of solatium of 30% would be made
thereupon. The amount arrived as per the direction in
paras (1) and (2) would be payable with interest @ 9%
per annum for one year from the date of possession i.e.
February, 2005 and thereupon 15% per annum as per
the Proviso to Section 34 of the Act of 1894.
4.
The amount deposited in the year 2017 would earn
interest @ 15% only till it was deposited. The amount
so deposited would be paid to the petitioner with the
interest earned on it.
5.
The amount of compensation would be paid thereupon
to the petitioner."
13. The High Court on the issue of applicability of Section 24 of
'Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013' (hereinafter referred to as
2013 Act), held that, the argument of lapsing of acquisition for an award
passed beyond a period prescribed under Section 11(a) cannot be accepted
in view of the ratio of judgment of this Court in 'Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manohar Lal & Ors., 2020 (8) SCC 129'. After going
through the said judgment, it is clear that Section 24(1)(a) of 2013 Act,
starts with non-obstante clause and states that in case where the
proceedings have been initiated under 1894 Act, but, the award has not
been made under Section 11, the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to
the determination of compensation would apply. In the case at hand, the
award was made on 31.01.2011 after grant of stay on 10.01.2011 in
Civil Appeal No. 731-732 of 2013, though it was by a delay of 5 years.
By the final order passed on 04.11.2015, the said appeals were dismissed.
REDDY VEERANA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
680
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Thereafter, the representation was made by the appellant asking
compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per sq. mtrs. as directed by
High Court inter-party relying upon judgment of Bhopendra Singh
(supra) was rejected vide order dated 08.01.2018. Thereafter, the
contempt petitions were filed alleging non-compliance of the order of
the High Court which were dismissed as withdrawn while granting the
liberty to appellant to avail appropriate remedy. Thus, on the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, the possession was taken and the award
was passed, though as alleged it was non-est. In our opinion, by the
impugned order, the determination of compensation as per circle rate of
Rs. 1,10,000/- per sq. mtrs for commercial land was the question resintegra in the light of Bhopendra Singh (supra) judgment and the award,
whether rightly or wrongly passed, was in existence on the date of
commencement of 2013 Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the
High Court has rightly refused to interfere on the issue of applicability of
2013 Act for determination of compensation and rightly relied upon the
judgment on Indore Development Authority (supra).
14. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant (landowner) and NOIDA have filed separate appeals, which are heard
analogously.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.B.
Suresh for appellant, in addition to the point of applicability of Section 24
of 2013 Act as discussed above, contended as under -
a.
That, the award dated 31.01.2011 passed by District
Magistrate was in violation of order of this Court as well as
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad;
b.
The award itself acknowledged that it was contingent in
nature;
c.
There was no personal hearing granted to the appellant, even
though NOIDA knew about the interest of the appellant in
the scheduled property;
d.
The impugned award was a void exercise since the public
notice of the same was given two days after the designated
date of hearing under Section 9 of the 1894 Act;
e.
The award itself was passed after a delay of 5 years since
the date of hearing, which violates the mandate under Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
681
11A of the 1894 Act.