It is well settled position that all deductions should not cumulatively be exceeded the upper benchmark of 75% and at the same time, it should be kept in mind that no hypothetical view shall be taken in order to calculate the percentage of the development charges. The present acquired land of Firozpur Namak village which is located at some distance from the Nuh Town needs to be developed in proper manner like construction of better and wide roads etc., to make it suitable for the acquisition purposes. The fact that facilities already available such as sewer, electricity etc., seems to be taken into consideration properly while reducing the development charges by the High Court from 60% to 10%. Consideration to the facts and circumstance noticed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that a cut at the rate of 10 % is very reasonable towards development of acquired land as some further development would obviously be required to make it fit for the purpose for which it was acquired. .....Mohammad Yusuf =VS= State of Haryana, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 28] ....View Full Judgment

The acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners may be more. .....Spl Agricultural Produce Market Committee =VS= N. Krishnappa, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 45] ....View Full Judgment

Challenging the acquisition proceedings–
It is seen from the above resume of the proceedings that the appellants were paid compensation and possession was duly taken. The appellants also preferred reference on which higher compensation was awarded and matter attained finality upto this Court. The appellants thereafter filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings which was held to barred by delay and latches against which SLP was dismissed by this Court. Of course, an observation was made that the appellants could prefer appropriate proceedings based on their grievance under the 2013 Act. .....Jasveer Singh =VS= State of Uttar Pradesh, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 23] ....View Full Judgment

Compensation– ITBP had deposited the estimated amount of compensation in the year 2009/2010 itself and the land owners/tenure holders were served with the notice to withdraw and/or take 80% of the estimated amount of compensation but they refused to take the compensation. Therefore, thereafter it is not open for the original writ petitioners to make the grievance that they have not been paid any compensation. Still, it will be open to them to withdraw the amount of compensation. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the year 2010 itself, final award directing adjudgment of the compensation to the tune of Rs.63309176.41 inclusive of solatium was published before that writ petition was filed and compensation was not accepted.
The present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed before the High Court by respondent no. 1 & 2 herein stands dismissed. ...Union of India =VS= Mohiuddin Masood, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (SC) 1] ....View Full Judgment

Compensation– We see no reason why the compensation awarded in L.A.R. No. 22/97 and L.A.R. No. 25/97 is not granted to the present Appellant @ Rs.8,500 per Are for land which has been acquired under the same Notification dated 11.05.1981. We consider it appropriate to grant compensation to the Appellant @ Rs.8,500 per Are for the land owned by him. The Appellant is entitled to Solatium @ 30% of the amount awarded, and other benefits under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as well as half of the costs incurred in the proceedings. Appellant is further entitled to Interest at the same rate as awarded to the claimants in L.A.R. No. 22/97 and L.A.R. No. 25/97 filed at the instance of the father and brother of the appellant. ...Murali alias Dhananjayan =VS= State of Kerala, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (SC) 1] ....View Full Judgment

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Section 24(2) r/w
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 31, 34
Compensation–– The Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it is seen that the High Court has ordered lapsing of the land in question under Section 24 of the Act, 2013 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the landowners. However, it is required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority that the possession of the land in question has already been taken. As observed hereinabove on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the landowner relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question has lapsed. ––The case of Indore Development Authority (supra), specifically overruling the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. .....Delhi Development Authority =VS= Bhagwat Singh, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (SC) 6] ....View Full Judgment

Compensation–
In the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering that the exemplar dated 26.05.1983 was for a small extent of land and that the acquired land has to be developed for construction of warehouse, we deem it appropriate to apply one-third deduction and deducting one-third that is Rs.2,21,629/- from Rs.6,64,887/-, the compensation to be awarded is arrived at Rs.4,43,258/- per acre. The impugned judgment is modified and the appellants/ claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.4,43,258/- payable with all statutory benefits. The appeals are partly allowed. It is made clear that the appellants/claimants shall not be entitled to claim interest for the period of delay in preferring the appeals from the review. .....Maya Devi =VS= State of Haryana, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 60] ....View Full Judgment