Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1211

2009(5) Supreme 463
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and V.S.Sirpurkar, JJ
Chandrashekhar & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer — Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4163-4165 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP) Nos. 4997- 4999 of 2005)
Decided on : 08-07-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Rajani K. Prasad, C.V. Subba Rao, V.V. Bagewadi, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, V.N. Raghupath, Ajay Kumar M., Advocates.
For the Respondents:Sanjay r. Hegde, A. Rahen Singh, Amit Kr. Chawla, Nishant Mishra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Once the court has taken the view that claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation they should not be denied the same on the mere technical ground of non payment of the court fees and an opportunity must be given for payment of the same.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition of lands of appellant for establishment of rehabilitation centre for the ousters of Kanabur and Jainapur Village submerged due to construction of Upper Krishna Project – Fixation of market value of said lands to Rs.17/- per Sq. Ft. – On Appeals thereagainst High Court held that market value of the lands would be more than Rs.32.20/ – per Sq. Ft., yet it restricted the amount to Rs.23/- only, in view of the deficit in the Court Fee paid by the appellants in their Cross-Objections, without affording the appellants to pay the balance Court Fee – Once the court has taken the view that claimants were entitled to enhance compensation they should not be denied the same on the mere technical ground of non payment of the court fees and an opportunity must be given for payment of the same – After examining the decision of the High Court, held that court had recognised the high value of the lands of the appellants and had accordingly justified the same – High Court had observed that locus and potentiality of acquired land with reference to evidence laid before the Civil court and that evidence was held to be a clear and clinching proof of the high potential of the acquired land – High Court further observed that allowing escalation at the rate of 10% p.a. for four years, the actual market value of the acquired land would have been Rs.32.10/- per Sq. Ft – However High Court then relied on the fact that the appellants had failed to mobilize money towards court fee and so the claim was restricted to Rs.23/-per Sq. Ft – Held that High Court should not have deprived the appellants of their rightful claim on the technical ground of want of requisite Court Fees and an opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit Court Fee – Decisions of High Court impugned in these appeals on termination of market value of the lands of appellants set aside – Appeals allowed. (Paras 7 to 13)
       Facts of the Case :
        Whether Issue in consideration in present case was if once the court has taken the view that claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation whether they can be denied the same on the mere technical ground of non payment of the court fees.
       Findings of the Court :
        Once the court has taken the view that claimants were entitled to enhance compensation they should not be denied the same on the mere technical ground of non payment of the court fees and an opportunity must be given for payment of the same-After examining the decision of the High Court, held that court had recognised the high value of the lands of the appellants and had accordingly justified the same. High Court had observed that locus and potentiality of acquired land with reference to evidence laid before the Civil court and that evidence was held to be a clear and clinching proof of the high potential of the acquired land. High Court further observed that allowing escalation at the rate of 10% p.a. for four years, the actual market value of the acquired land would have been Rs.32.10/- per Sq. Ft. However High Court then relied on the fact that the appellants had failed to mobilize money towards court fee and so the claim was restricted to Rs.23/- per Sq. Ft. Held that High Court should not have deprived the appellants of their rightful claim on the technical ground of want of requisite Court Fees and an opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit Court Fee. Decisions of High Court impugned in these appeals on termination of market value of the lands of appellants were set aside. Appeals were allowed.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the related judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore viz., judgment dated 14th of August, 2003 in MFA No. 1409/2003 and batch, judgment dated 27th of August, 2003 in MFA No. 1341/2003 and batch, judgment dated 10th of November, 2003 in MFA No. 5664/2003 and batch, and judgment dated 16th of June, 2006 in MFA No. 5309/2004. On 14th of August, 2003 the High Court, dismissing MFA No. 1409/2003 and batch, had fixed the market value of the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) at Rs.23/- per square feet which was contested by both the respondents as well as the appellants. This decision was relied upon in all the other decisions mentioned above that have come up for appeals in the present special leave petitions.

3. Since the decision dated 14th of August, 2003 was relied upon in all other judgments appealed against and the issues are based on the same material facts, the facts in appeal arising out of S.L.P. No.(s) 4997-4999/2005 are sufficient to decide the questions of law that have arisen in all these appeals.

4. On 5th of March, 1998, the lands of the appellant were notified for acquisition under Section 4 (1) of the Act, for establishment of rehabilitation centre for the ousters of Kanabur and Jainapur Village submerged due to construction of Upper Krishna Project. On 15th of August, 1998, Notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act was issued. On 1st of March, 1999, the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to ‘LAO’) passed an award determining the compensation @ Rs. 54, 500/- per acre and possession of the land was taken by the respondent on 31st of March, 1999. Consequent to Reference Application by the appellants, the LAO referred the matter to the Civil Court for determination and adjudication of correct market value payable for the acquired lands. The II Addl. Civil Judge, Bijapur, allowed the petitions and came to the conclusion that the acquired lands were similar in nature to comparable lands acquired by LAO @ Rs.23/- per Sq. Ft. for the purpose of ring road, and so the lands in question must be valued on the same terms. However, the Civil Court resorted to further deductions and held the market value of the said lands to be only Rs.17/- per Sq. Ft. on 4th of November and 6th of November, 2002 respectively. The final amount worked out to Rs.7,40,500/- per Acre. It was submitted that as per the Valuation Report dated 5th of August, 2002, submitted by PW2, Retired Superintending Engineer (PWD), Consulting Engineer and Registered Approved Valuer in respect of the acquired lands, the market value of the lands in question had worked out to Rs.73.50/- per Sq. Ft.

5. On 21st of March, 2003, the Respondent LAO filed Misc. First Appeal before the High Court of Karnataka for reduction of compensation awarded by the Civil Court and the present appellants appealed for enhancement of compensation. On 14th of August, 2003, the High Court held that the market value of the lands would be more than Rs.32.20/- per Sq. Ft., yet it restricted the amount to Rs.23/- only, in view of the deficit in the Court Fee paid by the appellants in their Cross-Objections, without affording the appellants to pay the balance Court Fee. This decision of the High Court was relied upon in all the other judgments already mentioned as far as the question of compensation amount is concerned, that have been appealed against and the decision here shall have a common effect on all the said judgments.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that decision of the High Court not to grant enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.32.10/- per Sq. Ft. on the mere technical ground that the appellants had restricted their claim to Rs.23/- per Sq. Ft. due to their inability to pay Court Fee was fallacious. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellants has dra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1211

2009(5) Supreme 463SUPREME COURT OF INDIATarun Chatterjee and V.S.Sirpurkar, JJChandrashekhar & Ors. — AppellantsversusAdditional Special Land Acquisition Officer — RespondentCivil Appeal Nos. 4163-4165 of 2009(Arising out of SLP) Nos. 4997- 4999 of 2005)Decided on : 08-07-2009

IMPORTANT POINT Once the court has taken the view that claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation they should not be denied the same on the mere technical ground of non payment of the court fees and an opportunity must be given for payment of the same.

Cases Referred (5)

2009(5) Supreme 463
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and V.S.Sirpurkar, JJ
Chandrashekhar & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer — Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4163-4165 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP) Nos. 4997- 4999 of 2005)
Decided on : 08-07-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Once the court has taken the view that claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation they should not be denied the same on the mere technical ground of non payment of the court fees and an opportunity must be given for payment of the same.