In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, a crucial judgement was delivered in the case of land acquisition compensation involving Kamla Devi and the State of India. The Court’s decision has far-reaching implications for the fair treatment of landowners in such cases, setting a precedent for equitable compensatory practices. Learn more about this landmark ruling and its implications in our detailed case summary.
Facts
- Appellant filed Writ Petition for additional compensation and interest on delay in payment for land acquired under Notifications dated June 10, 2008 and December 16, 2008.
- Award was declared on February 8, 2010 only for the land required by the respondents.
- Appellant seeks higher compensation rate and interest from March 30, 2011, based on a previous Court order in another case.
- Appellant sought compensation for a delay period of 84 months, claiming Rs. 10,23,28,000/-
- Respondents paid additional compensation for 66 months to others in similar situations but limited appellant’s compensation to only 2 months
- High Court directed appellant to approach Arbitrator for determining additional compensation under Section 20F(1) of the Act
- Respondent No.2 issued certificate for land parcel with a portion left out, leading to a petition and subsequent compensation order within two months
- Appellant challenged award dated 08 February, 2010, which was quashed by High Court
- Respondents calculated additional compensation for appellant only for a two-month delay period
Also Read: Compensation Assessment in Motor Accident Case: High Court Judgement Reversed by Supreme Court
Analysis
- The order dated 18 September, 2017, mentions an order dated 19 July, 2017, regarding a Writ Petition filed by Kamla Devi and others.
- Some portion of the land was left out after completion of formalities for publication, as it was not required for the project.
- Another award was declared for the left-out area, and additional compensation was paid to the landowners for 66 months.
- The appellant argues against being treated differently and for the delayed payment on the awarded amount for the left-out land to be restricted to only two months.
- The submission disputing this claims no history of the court directing compensation beyond two months was found.
- The High Court order in 2016 clarifies the two-month timeframe was for making payment and not for limiting the additional compensation period.
- The order from March 30, 2011, is deemed clear and needing no further interpretation.
- The second proviso to section 20F (2) of the Act requires payment of additional compensation for the delay in making the award
- The rate of additional compensation is not less than 5% of the value of the award for each month of delay
- The provision gives unguided discretion to the competent authority or the Arbitrator to award additional compensation at any higher rate
- Specifying a fixed monthly rate of increase might serve justice better than indicating a minimum rate per month
- The appellant is entitled to additional compensation as mentioned in the second proviso to section 20F (2) due to the delay in making the award beyond one year
- There was no need for the High Court to relegate the appellant to arbitration proceedings for determining additional compensation
Also Read: Equivalence of Qualifications: University of Calicut vs. KPSC
Decision
- Amount already paid by Respondents adjusted for two months delay
- Remaining amount to be released within eight weeks
- Appellant entitled to additional compensation for left out portion of land at 5% of the value of the award for 84 months
- Appellant entitled to simple interest at 7% per annum on outstanding amount until realized
- Appeal allowed with parties bearing own expenses
Also Read: CRPF Constable Termination Case: Upholding of Disciplinary Authority Decision
Case Title: SUBODH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2024 INSC 458)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006458-006458 – 2024
