Supreme Court Orders Noida Authority to Fully Compensate Farmers in 30-Year-Old Land Dispute

 Noida: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has directed the Noida Authority to compensate farmers with Rs 6 crore for the acquisition of 10,420 square metres of land in Sector 82, a dispute that dates back nearly three decades. The court emphasized that partial compensation is unacceptable, especially when public infrastructure has already been developed on the acquired land.

The apex court overruled a 2023 verdict by the Allahabad High Court that had validated Noida Authority’s partial compensation offer. It instructed that ownership verification be completed within two weeks, followed by the full compensation payment within six weeks thereafter.

The land in question lies in Begampur village, Bhangel, and was initially purchased in 1985-86 by Manorama Kuchhal, the petitioner’s mother. Of the total 11,680 sqm she owned, 1,260 sqm was sold off in 1989. Later that year, Noida Authority initiated land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for public projects such as roadways and a bus terminal.

This acquisition was legally contested by J.B. Kuchhal, Manorama’s husband. Although initially dismissed in 1997 due to lack of prosecution, the case was revived in 2007. In December 2016, the Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of the Kuchhal family, declaring the acquisition invalid and ordering either double compensation or complete return of the land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

However, alleging non-compliance with this order, Manorama filed a contempt petition in 2017 against the Noida Authority and district officials. She argued that her rightful land area had been deliberately underreported—from 10,420 sqm to 8,636 sqm, based on a 2012 report—thereby reducing the compensation unfairly.

The Authority contended that only 8,636 sqm belonged to the petitioners post-sale and that just 2,520 sqm had been used for road construction, with 6,116 sqm still lying vacant and therefore eligible for return. They had deposited Rs 1.3 crore—based on Rs 5,280 per sqm (double the market rate of Rs 2,640)—in a nationalized bank, which the family refused, citing the land’s much higher commercial value estimated at around Rs 315 crore.

With Manorama’s passing before the High Court’s 2023 order, her son Suneil continued the legal battle. The High Court dismissed the contempt plea, stating the Authority had complied with the 2016 directive by compensating for used land and offering to return the rest.

Challenging this decision, Suneil approached the Supreme Court, asserting that the High Court misread the 2016 ruling, which required compensation for the entire land parcel, not just the portion in use.

In its judgment dated April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that while there was no wilful contempt by the Authority, the High Court had erred by accepting partial compensation. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, upheld that the 2016 ruling mandated either full return of land or full compensation for the entire 10,420 sqm.

The court also noted that although 6,116 sqm appeared unused, it was now effectively surrounded by developed areas, making it impractical for the owners to reclaim and use. This gave the land strategic value for future urban development, further strengthening the case for complete compensation.

The court ordered the Authority to verify the land area against sale deeds within two weeks and to pay compensation at Rs 5,280 per sqm, inclusive of all statutory benefits, within six weeks of verification.

“This rate was already acknowledged for the 2,520 sqm acquired for road construction. It is just and fair that the same rate applies to the entire 10,420 sqm, pending verification of ownership,” the bench noted in its ruling.