Pay Farmers Full Compensation: SC Orders Noida Authority in 30-year-old Land Case

Noida, May 9, 2025: In a big relief for farmers from whom 10,420 sq m of land was acquired in Sector 82 three decades ago, the Supreme Court (SC) has asked the Noida Authority to pay Rs 6 crore compensation.

Since the land was partially used for public infrastructure without completing the acquisition, the Noida Authority had offered partial compensation, which was upheld by the Allahabad High Court (HC) in a 2023 order.

However, the apex court rejected the offer and instructed that land ownership verification must be completed within two weeks and the compensation paid within six weeks.

The petitioner’s mother Manorama Kuchhal had purchased an 11,680 sq m land parcel at Begampur village, Bhangel, in 1985-86. She sold 1,260 sq m in 1989. In 1989-90, the Noida Authority started the process of acquiring the land for infrastructure projects under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

However, the acquisition was challenged by Manorama’s husband JB Kuchhal before the HC, which dismissed the petition in 1997 for want of prosecution. However, the petition was revived in 2007.

On December 19, 2016, the HC quashed the 1989-90 acquisition notification and ruled in favour of the Kuchhal family. The Noida Authority was ordered to either compensate the landowners at double the market rate, per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within three months or return the land after removing all constructions.

In 2017, Manorama filed a contempt petition alleging the Authority’s non-compliance with the 2016 order. The petition argued that the Authority reduced the compensable land area from 10,420 sq m, per a 2012 Tehsildar report, to 8,636 sq m and claimed that a bus terminal was constructed on their land without adequate compensation.

The Authority submitted that the applicants’ landholding was only 8,636 sqm after accounting for the sale in 1989-90. The Authority stated that only 2,520 sq m were used for road construction while 6,116 sq m was vacant and could be returned.

A compensation of INR 1.3 crore, calculated at INR 5,280 per sq m, which was double the market rate of INR 2,640, as assessed by a 2019 committee, was deposited in a nationalised bank after Manorama refused to take it. She preferred a commercial-rate compensation for the entire land, which was around INR 315 crore.

On July 21, 2023, the HC dismissed the contempt application and ruled that the Authority had complied with the 2016 order by offering compensation for the utilised 2,520 sq m and proposing to return the vacant 6,116 sq m.

Manorama died before the HC order, and the case was pursued by her son Suneil, who appealed to the SC arguing that the Authority misinterpreted the 2016 judgment, which mandated compensation for the entire land or its complete return.

In its April 30, 2025, order, the SC didn’t find any wilful disobedience by the Noida Authority. However, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh held that the HC had erred in limiting compensation to a portion of the land.

The Bench clarified that the 2016 judgment obligated the Authority to either return the entire land or pay compensation for all 10,420 sq m. Observing that the vacant land, surrounded by the Authority’s developed land, was unusable by the landowners but valuable for the Authority’s future development plans, the court ruled in favour of full compensation.

The court directed Noida Authority and the district administration to verify the total land area within two weeks of receiving the sale deeds and pay compensation at Rs 5,280 per sq m—Rs 2,640 base rate plus 100 per cent solatium, as determined by a 2023 committee.

“This rate was, in fact, offered to the appellant for land measuring 2,520 sq m, which was utilised for the construction of a public road. We, thus, deem it appropriate to direct that the same rate of compensation, along with all statutory benefits, shall be offered to the appellant for their entire land measuring 10,420 sq m subject to the verification of the total area owned by them,” the SC order reads.