Ismail Hushen Ghanchi (Kalwat) v. National Highways Authority of India
Background
Small landholders whose land, planted with fruit-bearing trees, was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) were dissatisfied with how compensation had been calculated. The High Court had sustained the enhanced land value fixed by the Reference Court but cut the compensation for the trees to 20%. The landowners appealed to the Supreme Court, which on an earlier date (7 November 2017) asked them to choose between two valuation methods, income-based valuation of the fruit trees, or market-value-of-land-plus-crop-value, given how small their holdings were.
Decision Breakdown
Because their landholdings were very small and the families depended on income from the fruit-bearing trees, the appellants' counsel elected the income-based method for calculating compensation. The Supreme Court directed that compensation be recalculated purely on that income-from-trees basis (as already computed by the Reference Court), with the landowners additionally entitled to statutory additional compensation, solatium, and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court clarified that any compensation already received under the land-value method would be adjusted against the new award (with 15% interest from the date of receipt, unless the amount was deposited in court), and that solatium and interest are necessarily part of "compensation." The appeals were disposed of on these terms with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Landowners whose acquired property included income-generating assets like orchards had a real choice in how compensation could be computed (income from the trees vs. land-plus-crop value), and the Supreme Court will tailor the final compensation formula to what is actually most beneficial to a small landholder, while ensuring statutory interest and solatium are never left out.