Summary
NOIDA had transferred privately owned land to a developer before formally acquiring it, despite an injunction. In further compensation litigation, the Court upheld the binding circle-rate basis of Rs.1,10,000 per square metre, removed the High Court’s 50% development deduction and added 3% penal interest for the constitutional wrong. Compensation under the 2013 Act was refused because an award existed when that Act commenced.
Issues
- Whether the settled circle-rate basis could be reopened or compensation determined under the 2013 Act.
- Whether development charges could be deducted on this record.
- What interest and payment directions were warranted by NOIDA’s conduct and delay.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(1), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Rejected redetermination under the 2013 Act because possession had been taken and an award existed at commencement, despite objections to that award. (¶¶ 13, 32)
- Section 23(2), Land Acquisition Act, 1894Preserved 30% solatium on the compensation. (¶¶ 30, 33)
- Section 34, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Applied statutory interest of 9% for the first year after possession and 15% thereafter, with the operative directions governing the deposited sum as well. (¶ 31-33)
- Article 300A, Constitution of IndiaTreated the deprivation and prolonged failure to compensate in these circumstances as a constitutional tort warranting additional penal interest. (¶ 31-32)
Held
- The earlier inter-party judgment directing compensation in accordance with Bhopendra Singh had become final after Supreme Court scrutiny. NOIDA could not reopen the crystallized entitlement. The prior PIL about the developer’s tender price had not decided this owner’s compensation and did not displace the binding determination. (¶ 18-26)
- NOIDA’s own pleadings and the revenue report established the commercial character and developed condition of the land. The Rs.1,10,000-per-square-metre circle rate was upheld on that record and the binding earlier litigation; the ownership finding was left undisturbed. (¶ 21-26)
- Development deduction depends on the land’s condition, amenities, use, extent and other relevant circumstances, rather than a fixed formula. The High Court’s unexplained 50% deduction was removed in the peculiar circumstances, including prior transfer without acquisition, completed development and protracted nonpayment. The Court expressly confined its application to these facts. (¶¶ 27-30, 33)
- An award existed when the 2013 Act commenced and possession had been taken. The Court declined the requested change of compensation regime or valuation date. Instead, the constitutional wrong and delay justified 3% penal interest in addition to the statutory interest, as case-specific relief. (¶¶ 13, 31-33)
Result
NOIDA’s appeal dismissed and the owner’s appeal partly allowed. NOIDA must pay compensation at Rs.1,10,000 per square metre without development deduction, plus 30% solatium. The operative order directs 9% statutory interest from possession stated there as February 2005 for one year, then 15% per annum, with additional 3% penal interest. The 2017 deposit also earns interest at the directed rate until realization. Entire payment due within six weeks of judgment; liability rests on NOIDA, not the auction purchaser.