Noida land acquisition ruling not a precedent: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has shut the door on more claims from farmers for greater compensation in land acquisition cases similar to those in Noida and Greater Noida, stating that the order enhancing compensation for Noida farmers would not be treated as a precedent.

In its ruling uploaded on Tuesday, a bench, comprising Chief Justice of India HL Dattu and Justices AK Sikri and Arun Mishra, said the Supreme Court’s decision to affirm the Allahabad High Court order enhancing additional compensation by 64.7% and also entitlement to land up to 10% of developed land subject to a cap of 2,500 sq metres in 61 villages won’t be treated as a precedent as it was passed in peculiar circumstances.

The ruling comes at a time when real estate companies are facing increased demand for higher compensations from former landowners.

The Allahabad High Court had in its order dismissed claims for higher compensation from farmers in six villages, namely, Chaura Sadatpur, Sultanpur, Alaverdipur, Sadarpur, Nithari and Khoda.

But it had directed the authorities to return land in three villages of Yusufpur Chak Shaberi, Asdullapur and Devalla as these had not been developed yet.

In cases of land involving 61 other villages including Patwari, Pargana and Abadi, the court had upheld increase in additional compensation. This will translate into crores of rupees in terms of additional compensation to the Noida and Greater Noida authorities, which will, in turn, transfer the costs to the flat owners of at least 11 developers.

Seen in this context, the top court’s May 14 order may be an attempt not to interfere with compensation awarded in cases where third-party rights have already been created.

This was one major ground that the High Court had cited for not quashing the acquisitions in 61villages of Noida and Greater Noida in Dadri tehsil of Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.

The High Court upheld a majority of these acquisitions with greater compensation and land entitlement in October, 2011, even though it found merit in the farmers’ plea that the authorities were wrong in invoking the emergency clause to acquire their land.