Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/more-time-to-seek-higher-land-price-by-samanwaya-rautray-1376.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | More time to seek higher land price by Samanwaya Rautray | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

More time to seek higher land price by Samanwaya Rautray

The Supreme Court has clarified that land-losers can challenge the compensation awarded by a collector within six months of “coming to know of it” to avoid “unreasonable discrimination”.

Till now, an application for higher compensation had to be filed within six months of the collector announcing the award.

The ruling came on appeals filed by some Uttar Pradesh villagers against a high court judgment that rejected their plea for a review.

Permitting the villagers to make a fresh application, the top court ruled that though the Land Acquisition Act says a compensation can be challenged within six months of the collector making the announcement, it couldn’t be “literally” interpreted.

“If the words six months from the ‘date of the collector’s award’ should be literally interpreted as referring to the date of the award and not the date of knowledge of the award, it will lead to unjust and absurd results,” the court said.

For example, the collector may choose to make an award but not to issue any notice under Section 12(2) of the act, either out of negligence, oversight or ulterior reasons. Or, the court said in its ruling last week, the collector might send a notice but not bother to ensure it had been served on the landowner as required under Section 45 of the act.

“If the words ‘date of the collector’s award’ are literally interpreted, the effect would be that on the expiry of six months from the date of award, even though the claimant had no notice of the award, he would lose the right to seek a reference (for higher compensation).

“That will lead to arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination between those who are notified of the award and those who are not notified of the award.”

To avoid such a situation, the words “date of the collector’s award” is required to be read as referring to the date of knowledge of the contents of the award, the court said.

The court also noted that during land acquisition, there was a “tendency on the part of the collector to be conservative… which results in less than the market value being offered”.

The land-loser, the court added, is “invariably” required to make an application to get the market value.

In the case on which the ruling came, the collector of Banda district had on March 14, 2007, announced a compensation for land taken over to build a market.

The villagers were served a notice on October 25 by the office of the collector to appear and receive the compensation. They made enquiries and, on November 16, learnt that an award had been made on March 14.

The villagers immediately made an application for increasing the amount. On December 19, 2007, the collector rejected their application, saying it had been made more than six months after the award was announced, and refused to forward the plea to a civil court.

The appellants then filed a writ petition in the high court. On January 17, 2008, the high court dismissed the petition, saying the villagers ought to have sought a waiver of the delay along with the application for increasing the compensation.