Tags » Land Acquisition Act
Land Acquisition = the division bench was in error in distinguishing the present case from the judgment in Gajraj (supra).= As observed by this Court in Savitri Devi (supra), in spite of the finding that invocation of urgency clause was uncalled for, the relief of setting aside the acquisition was not granted having regard to the development that had already undertaken on substantial part of the land. However, to balance the equities higher compensation and allotment of land was ordered to meet the ends of justice. = Full Bench judgment as upheld by this Court is not based on the extent of delay in individual cases. Consideration for not granting the relief of quashing the acquisition is overall development on substantial part of the acquired land as noted in para 50 of the Full Bench judgment already quoted hereinabove. Filing of prompt petitions by an individual is not the only consideration for grant of relief of quashing acquisition when almost entire land has already been developed. The Full Bench has quashed acquisition only where substantial part of the land had not been developed. The category of the judgment where acquisition has not been quashed covers the entire village where land of the respondents is located.=The respondents are, thus, entitled to be treated at par with other similarly placed persons. They are entitled to the following relief as per para 48.1 to 48.3 of the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi (supra): “ 48.1. Increasing the compensation by 64.7%; Directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners; Compensation which is increased @64.7% is payable immediately without taking away the rights of the landowners to claim higher compensation under the machinery provided in the Land Acquisition Act wherein the matter would be examined on the basis of the evidence produced to arrive at just and fair market value. ”As earlier noted in para 11 earlier, allotment of 10% of the acquired land to the concerned land owners is subject to maximum of 2500 sq. meters. In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and direct disposal of the writ petitions of the respondents in terms of the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi (supra). There will be no order as to costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5372 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.9550 of 2015
GREATER NOIDA IND. 2,804 more words