Thirty-nine years after the land was taken, the Supreme Court asks again that the appeals be heard

Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu direct the Meerut Development Authority to deposit the entire enhanced compensation within four weeks, release 8.33 per cent to the landowners, and record regret that a priority request made in April went unheeded.

Land in two villages near Meerut was acquired in 1987 for the Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme. The Special Land Acquisition Officer valued it in 1990 at twenty and twenty-seven rupees a square yard. Thirty-four years later the Reference Court raised that to six hundred and ninety and seven hundred and twenty rupees. The acquiring body appealed, the High Court stayed the award on terms, and nothing has since been decided. On 8 October 2026 a Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu disposed of a batch of fifteen petitions with a direction that the whole enhanced sum be deposited, a fraction of it released now, and the first appeals be taken up on priority — the second time this Court has asked for that in six months.

Rs 20 a square yard in 1990, Rs 690 in 2024

The acquisition proceedings date back to 1987. By an award of 22 February 1990 the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut determined compensation at Rs 20 and Rs 27 per square yard for the respective villages. The landowners sought references, and by an award dated 30 March 2024 the Presiding Officer of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Meerut enhanced the figures to Rs 690 and Rs 720 per square yard. Different amounts were determined for different landowners; senior counsel for the Authority placed a chart of them before the Court, which was taken on record as an appendix to the order.

That award is under challenge in a batch of first appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In the interregnum the High Court passed interim orders — the order of 17 September 2025 in First Appeal No. 717 of 2025 is cited as an instance — staying implementation of the award provided the Authority deposited fifty per cent of the enhanced compensation in cash and furnished security for the rest. The claimants were permitted to receive the whole of the cash deposit, with the balance to abide the result of the appeals.

Parity with an order from April

An order of 24 April 2026, passed by a coordinate Bench of which Justice Datta was a member in a similar matter, was placed before the Court. There, out of an enhanced amount of approximately Rs 6 crore, Rs 50 lakh was directed to be released to the landowners subject to conditions — roughly 8.33 per cent of the total.

Since the petitions arose out of appeals still pending before the High Court, the Bench took the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping them pending, and disposed of them on terms designed to maintain parity with that order. The Authority is to deposit the entire enhanced sum awarded by the Reference Court in favour of these respondents with the Registry of the High Court within four weeks. Once the deposit is made, the Registrar General is to set apart a sum equivalent to 8.33 per cent of the enhanced compensation awarded to each respondent, and to invest the balance in separate interest-bearing fixed deposit accounts of a nationalised bank on an auto-renewal basis, subject to further orders of the High Court in the pending appeals. The set-apart sum is to be remitted to the landowners in accordance with law, and its release and receipt are without prejudice to either side's rights and contentions. If the appeals succeed, the released sum is to be returned.

The part about the pace

The order does not end there, and the closing paragraphs are the reason to read it.

“Before parting, we cannot turn a blind eye to the pace at which the pending first appeals are being dealt with in the High Court.” The acquisition dates back to 1987. Despite the specific request made in the April order to ensure the appeals were heard on a priority basis, the High Court could not take them up; the required alacrity, it was submitted, is missing. The Bench recorded this “with a sense of regret”, and said it was not unmindful of the heavy burden on each bench of the High Court — yet once a request is made, it is expected of the roster bench to make a sincere endeavour to expedite a decision.

The reason given for pressing the point is even-handed. The Reference Court has enhanced the compensation “by an unusually large margin”, which on one hand burdens the Authority with a huge financial liability and on the other leaves the landowners in a state of uncertainty as to what compensation will finally attain finality. Neither side gains from the delay.

Order

The High Court was requested once again to take up the batch of first appeals relating to the Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme on a priority basis and to decide them as early as possible, subject to its convenience and preferably within six months of communication of the order. If for valid reasons it cannot dispose of them in that period, the landowners have liberty to seek the release of such further sum as the High Court may think fit. The Registry was directed to communicate a copy of the order to the Registrar General for placing before the Chief Justice, for information and if required for administrative directions to ensure compliance. Delay was condoned in the connected petitions and pending applications disposed of.