Bombay High Court Increases Compensation for Land Acquired Under Bembla Project: “Entitled to Enhanced Compensation with All Statutory Benefits and Interest, But No Interest for Delayed Period of 839 Days”

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, partly allowed the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, granting the appellant a higher compensation for the acquired land. The court revised the compensation to Rs. 575 per square meter for the land while keeping the compensation for construction unchanged at Rs. 51,700.

Additionally, the court clarified that the appellant is entitled to receive the enhanced compensation along with all statutory benefits and interest. However, as per a previous order dated 4th November 2023, the appellant was not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 839 days.

Facts

• The appellant owned House No. 195/2, which consisted of a built-up area of 188.23 square meters and a total land area of 229.90 square meters in village Ghuikhed, Chandur Railway, District Amravati.
• The property was acquired for the submergence area of the Bembla Project.
• A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 26th October 2005, and the award under Section 11 was passed on 6th September 2008.
• The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at Rs. 140 per square foot for open land and Rs. 32,186 for the construction.
• Dissatisfied with the compensation, the appellant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
• On 29th August 2017, the Reference Court partly allowed the claim, increasing the total compensation to Rs. 1,34,464:
  • Rs. 82,764 for the land (at an increased rate)
  • Rs. 51,700 for the construction (unchanged)
  • Solatium and other statutory benefits were also included.
• The appellant, still dissatisfied, filed the present First Appeal seeking further enhancement.

Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was adequate?
2. Whether the appellant was entitled to a higher rate of compensation based on previous judgments of the Bombay High Court?
3. Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the delayed period of 839 days?

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the issue in this appeal was already settled by previous judgments of the Bombay High Court.
• The counsel cited First Appeal Nos. 1378/2018 and 389/2018 (decided on 6th September 2021) and First Appeal No. 918/2023 (decided on 13th October 2023), where higher compensation had been granted for similar lands acquired for the same project.
• Based on these judgments, the appellant sought:
  • Land compensation to be enhanced to Rs. 575 per square meter.
  • The compensation for construction to remain unchanged as per the Reference Court’s order.
• The appellant emphasized that all similarly placed landowners had been granted higher compensation, and thus, he should not be treated differently.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The State of Maharashtra (Respondents 1 and 2) and the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not dispute the claim that previous judgments had awarded higher compensation for similar cases.
• The Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division (Respondent 3), also did not challenge the appellant’s demand.
• However, the respondents maintained that the appellant was not entitled to interest for the 839-day delay in filing the appeal, as per the court’s previous ruling on 4th November 2023.

Analysis of the Law

• The case was analyzed under Sections 18 and 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• Section 18 allows landowners to seek enhanced compensation if they are dissatisfied with the initial award.
• Section 54 provides for further appeals to the High Court in such cases.
• The court applied the doctrine of parity, ensuring that all similarly placed landowners receive equal compensation.
• The court also adhered to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides for solatium (extra compensation for involuntary land acquisition) and other statutory benefits.
• However, under Section 28A of the Act, the court upheld the limitation on interest for delayed claims, as the appellant had not approached the court within the prescribed time frame.

Precedent Analysis

• The court relied on two key judgments:
  1. First Appeal Nos. 1378/2018 and 389/2018 (decided on 6th September 2021).
  2. First Appeal No. 918/2023 (decided on 13th October 2023).
• In both these cases, the court had awarded Rs. 575 per square meter for lands acquired under the same project.
• Since the respondents did not dispute the applicability of these precedents, the court found no reason to deny the same relief to the appellant.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The court noted that the appellant’s land was similarly situated to those in previous cases where compensation had been enhanced.
2. Since the respondents had not challenged the precedent judgments, the court determined that the same compensation rate should apply here.
3. The court found that Rs. 575 per square meter was a reasonable and justified rate based on the prevailing market value and the compensation awarded in identical cases.
4. The amount for construction (Rs. 51,700) remained unchanged, as the Reference Court had already awarded fair compensation for this aspect.
5. The court upheld the previous ruling that the appellant would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 839 days, ensuring legal consistency.

Conclusion

• The First Appeal was partly allowed.
• The compensation for the appellant’s land was enhanced to Rs. 575 per square meter.
• The compensation for construction remained Rs. 51,700.
• The appellant was entitled to receive the enhanced amount with all statutory benefits and interest.
• The interest for the 839-day delay in filing the appeal was not granted.
• The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Legal Consistency:
   • The judgment reinforces the principle of parity, ensuring that all similarly placed landowners receive the same compensation.
   • This prevents discrimination in land acquisition compensation and ensures uniform application of the law.
2. Guidance for Future Land Acquisition Cases:
   • This case sets a benchmark for compensation in similar cases of land acquisition for public projects.
   • Landowners can rely on this judgment to seek similar compensation in pending cases.
3. Prevention of Multiple Appeals:
   • By following previous judgments, the court reduces the scope for future litigation on the same issue.
   • The State must now consider awarding uniform compensation in all pending cases to avoid repeated appeals.
4. Interest Limitation for Delayed Appeals:
   • The court maintained its previous ruling that interest would not be payable for delayed claims, reinforcing the importance of filing appeals within the stipulated time.
   • This serves as a precedent for future cases where appellants may delay approaching the court.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Quashing of FIR Amidst Cross Allegations of Assault and Sexual Harassment, Holds “Existence of a Cross FIR is Not a Sole Ground for Quashing”