Landowners can't be discriminated to pay compensation: SC [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has declared that the classification of land as 'Pushtaini' and 'Gair-Pushtaini' for awarding compensation for land acquired by the Greater Noida authority, a major industrial town abutting the national capital, would be bad in law and thus liable to be set aside.

"The establishment of Greater Noida was done for a noble purpose, i.e., to accommodate in the city all those who came travelling from every corner of the country in search of a better life. While doing so however, as can be seen in the present case, some residents whose land was subject to acquisition in the pursuit of the said aim, were faced with discrimination. In such circumstance, it becomes the duty of this court to dispense justice, and rectify the harm caused to those at the receiving end of the discrimination," a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and S Ravindra Bhat said.

The top court set aside the Allahabad High Court's full bench decision of March 30, 2018, which had upheld the authorities' order to provide additional compensation to 'Pushtaini' landholders for the land acquired.

The Greater Noida authorities on October 28, 1997 classified as Pushtaini, those landholders who had purchased the land prior to the date of establishment of authority i.e. January 28, 1991 and thereafter got the land by partition or family
settlement. Gair-Pushtaini were those who purchased the land after its establishment.

It pointed out the word Pushtaini is a Persian word and finds its origin from the word Pusht, which means back. The said word has been historically used in the context of ancestry. Any possession, tale or legend, that has roots to a particular ancestry, to denote its significance to the said ancestry, the word Pushtaini is used. As is obvious, since the word Gair which finds its origin in Urdu language means other than, thus, Gair-Pushtaini would mean one which is not Pushtaini.

"What we find most interesting however, is that ancestry as a concept, especially before times of modern private property ownership, had remained to be a tool for inclusivity and not exclusion. In such a context, the use of the word Pushtaini by the Authority, to exclude compensation might be a historically inaccurate interpretation. While this is not consequential to the merits of the case, it is in our opinion a worthwhile observation, for law has to power to legitimize the meaning of words and can change the context in which a word used, and in turn can change the course of history itself," the bench said.

The court further said the objective of the said classification might have been noble, however, such classification only on the basis of conjectures and surmises cannot be sustained.

"If a claim is being made to differentiate between class of persons, such claim must be backed by empirical data. While this court is not a fact-finding court and is a court of law, however, the law must also not be understood in isolation, but in the context in which it exists, as the law does not exist like an object within the statutes, but lives and evolves with the people it governs," the bench said.

To arrive its conclusion, the bench framed a number of legal questions and answered those in favour of the appellants, a group of landholders.

In reply to a question whether the appellants are bound by the compensation as per the agreement under the Land Acquisition rules, and have waived off their right to seek enhanced compensation, the bench answered it in negative and in favour of the petitioners.

The court also examined the impugned classification under the rigors of Article 14 of the Constitution including reasonable classification test and proportionality test to strike it down.

"When the purpose of the acquisition of the land is for the benefit of the public at large, then the nature of the owner of the said land is inconsequential to the purpose. If such a classification on the basis of the nature of owner is allowed, then on the same grounds, there might be a possibility of future classifications where powerholding members of the society may get away with a larger compensation, and the marginalised may get lesser compensation," the bench said.

Referring to the Nagpur Trust Case, the bench pointed out, "The Land Acquisition Act does not distinguish between classes of owners, and uniformly provides compensation to all class of landowners. The classification made between 'Pushtaini' landowners and 'Gair-pushtaini' landowners, is violative of the law laid down and Article 14 of the Constitution."

Senior advocates Pradeep Kant appeared for the appellants, Ravindra Kumar for the Greater Noida and Additional Advocate General Ravindra Kumar Raizada for the Uttar Pradesh government.

[Read Judgment]