In Brief
In this land acquisition appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether compensation should reflect land quality or crops grown at the time of notification. The appellants' sugarcane fields received significantly lower compensation (Rs. 2.38-2.65 lacs/acre) than adjacent arecanut-cultivated land (Rs. 10.08 lacs/acre). The Court held that compensation should depend on intrinsic land quality, not temporary crops. It remitted the matter to the High Court for reassessment of whether the appellants' land quality matched the arecanut-cultivated land, potentially entitling them to similar compensation, subject to forfeiture of delay benefits if enhancement is granted.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.