2014 (7) TMI 1303 - SC - Indian Laws

Demand of enhanced compensation - land was acquired by the Government by way of compulsory acquisition - Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - appellants in all these appeals had preferred the regular first appeals which were heard and dismissed by the learned Single Judge along with the appeals of other persons. However, they did not challenge the order by preferring further appeal before the Division Bench, though, similarly situated landowners had preferred the appeals and in their cases, compensation was enhanced to ₹ 200 per square yard - HELD THAT - No doubt, there is a long delay in filing the appeals. However, we find that it is a case of payment of compensation to these appellants who were the landowners and which land was taken away by compulsory acquisition. However, landowners whose lands were taken over by the same notification, have been able to get the compensation @ ₹ 200 per square yard whereas the compensation given to the appellants is @ ₹ 101 per square yard for their entire land - It is also not in dispute that the appellants are agriculturists. Their averment that they could not prefer the LPAs because of their financially weak condition, has not been disputed by the respondents. In the matter of land acquisition where land of peasants is acquired, a different approach has to be taken. These persons should not be deprived of the reasonable compensation for their lands. If other similarly situated landowners are given the compensation @ ₹ 200 square yard, there is no reason to pay the compensation to the appellants at much lesser rate. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants' interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic. Impugned orders of the High Court are set aside. Delay in filing the LPAs is condoned. It is held that the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation @ ₹ 200 per square yard. However, for the period of delay in approaching the High Court by way of LPAs, in all these cases, no interest should be paid to them - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing special leave petitions and application for substitution
- Compensation for land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act
- Refusal by High Court to condone delay in filing appeals
- Principles regarding condonation of delay in land acquisition matters

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing special leave petitions and application for substitution:
The Supreme Court granted permission to file special leave petitions and condoned the delay in filing them. The applications for substitution were allowed, and legal representatives were brought on record.

2. Compensation for land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act:
The appeals involved the acquisition of lands by the Government of Haryana under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants sought enhanced compensation based on a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court awarding compensation at a higher rate. The appellants had initially received compensation at a lower rate, and their appeals were heard and decided collectively for convenience.

3. Refusal by High Court to condone delay in filing appeals:
The appellants, being agriculturists, claimed that their financially weak condition prevented them from filing appeals before the Division Bench, resulting in a delay. The High Court refused to condone the delay, leading to the filing of the present proceedings challenging the High Court's orders. The Supreme Court noted that similarly situated landowners had been granted higher compensation by the Division Bench, and the appellants' financial constraints were considered in the context of condoning the delay.

4. Principles regarding condonation of delay in land acquisition matters:
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in land acquisition cases, particularly concerning compensation for landowners. Citing previous judgments, the Court highlighted the importance of ensuring substantial justice and balancing equities. The Court noted that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delays to prevent the defeat of substantive rights on technical grounds. The principles enunciated in earlier judgments regarding the condonation of delay in land acquisition matters were reiterated and applied to the present case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appellants were granted enhanced compensation at a rate of Rs. 200 per square yard, with no interest payable for the delay in approaching the High Court. The compensation was to be calculated and paid to the appellants within three months from the date of the judgment.