This Supreme Court judgment interprets Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, affirming the method for determining market value based on comparable sale instances. It clarifies that rental compensation for pre-acquisition occupation is not statutorily mandated, but equitable interest may be awarded under Section 28 for specific periods of dispossession.
Facts Of The Case:
This case concerns a long-standing dispute over a 37-Are (3,700 sq. m.) plot of land in Nashik, originally part of Survey No. 8/1. In 1972, the Nashik Municipal Corporation (then Council) resolved to reserve the land for public purposes and took possession of this portion without formal acquisition. A 1978 notification under land acquisition laws only acquired an adjacent 1.01-hectare plot, leaving the 37-Ares unacquired, though the Corporation continued using it for a road. The original landowner contended the reservation had lapsed and, after prolonged litigation, the High Court in 1998 declared the reservation had lapsed. The appellant purchased the disputed 37-Ares in 2011. Subsequently, the High Court in 2013 directed the state to acquire the land, a decision largely upheld by the Supreme Court. Following a contempt proceeding, the land was formally acquired in 2017. The appellant, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), sought a reference. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation and also granted substantial rental compensation for the Corporation’s alleged illegal occupation from 1972. The High Court set aside this enhanced award, restoring the SLAO’s compensation and denying the rental claim, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case is extensive and spans several decades. It originated with the original owner’s writ petition in 1995, challenging the lapsed reservation. The High Court’s 1998 order declared the reservation lapsed. Subsequent rejections of development plans by the Corporation led to an appeal under the MRTP Act, which was dismissed in 2007. The original owner then filed Writ Petition No. 3560 of 2009; the High Court remanded the matter in 2009, an order upheld by the Supreme Court in 2010. After purchasing the land in 2011, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 11709 of 2012, leading to a 2013 High Court order directing acquisition, which was partly modified by the Supreme Court in 2015 to disallow the Corporation’s plea of adverse possession. Contempt proceedings in 2016 finally compelled the 2017 acquisition. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the appellant sought a reference. The Reference Court’s 2021 award, which enhanced compensation and granted rental damages, was set aside by the High Court in 2023, culminating in the present Supreme Court appeal.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Protects 37.5-Acre Family Plantation from Kerala Vesting Act