In a fateful case concerning the prolonged litigation that has denied the landowners their rightful compensation for over four decades, the Allahabad High Court held that technical objections cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive rights of landowners, particularly when those objections arise from the very parties who initially challenged and delayed the compensation determination process.
Emphasising that ‘the compensation awarded is not a largesse but a legal entitlement that has been long overdue’, the Court pointed out that the wheels of justice, though they grind slowly, must ultimately ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. The beneficial legislation of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, exists precisely to protect the rights of those who, due to various constraints, cannot initially assert their claims through formal legal processes.
Reference has been made to the decision of the Apex Court in Narendra and others vs. State of U.P. (2017) 9 SCC 426, where it was held that “once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined as fair compensation, the benefit thereof should be extended even to those who could not approach the court or who may have initially claimed lesser compensation due to poverty or other constraints”.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai referred to the principle of distributive justice and equal treatment, forming the very foundation upon which Section 28-A operates, to state that the economically disadvantaged and inarticulate sections of society shall not be deprived of their rightful compensation merely due to procedural constraints or lack of legal awareness.
The Bench explained that compensation for land acquisition is not a gratuitous payment but a constitutional obligation under Article 31 of the Constitution of India, and the State’s duty to provide just compensation is not diminished by financial considerations. Moreover, Section 28-A serves the larger public policy of ensuring equitable treatment of all landowners affected by acquisition.
Accordingly, the Bench allowed the petition filed by landowners seeking implementation of an order passed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, directing Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (KUMS) to deposit enhanced compensation. The Bench clarified that applications under Section 28-A were filed within limitation, that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) had rightly redetermined the compensation, and that KUMS had no valid ground to withhold payment.
Briefly, in this case, in a dispute regarding the acquisition of a village land in Moradabad, for constructing a Market Yard by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (KUMS). Dissatisfied with the compensation initially awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), a few tenure-holders sought reference under Section 18, which was initially rejected but later reviewed, and compensation was enhanced.
Appearances:
Advocates Ravi Prakash Pandey, Suresh C. Dwivedi, and Sudeep Harkauli, for the Petitioners
Advocates Archit Mandhyan, C.S.C., and Chandra Shekhar Singh, for the Respondents