The principle of fairness and consistency in granting compensation for land acquisition, especially when the same rate of compensation has been granted in similar circumstances.

Headnote:
Compensation - Land Acquisition - Grant of compensation at a specific rate - Denial of compensation to appellants - Modification of impugned judgment and order in review
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were denied compensation at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/-per acre, which had been granted in respect of the same acquisition and in the same village for the same purpose. The High Court had allowed certain appeals and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/-per acre, but the appellants' review was turned down.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that since the compensation at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/- had been granted in respect of the same acquisition and covered by the same notification and coming under the same village, there was no reason to deny the benefit to the appellant. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/-per acre along with statutory benefits. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the order in review were modified accordingly.
Issues: Denial of compensation to appellants despite the grant of compensation at the same rate in similar circumstances
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of compensation to the appellants was unjustified, as the same rate of compensation had been granted in similar circumstances. The court emphasized the principle of fairness and consistency in granting compensation for land acquisition.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/-per acre along with statutory benefits. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the order in review were modified to reflect this decision.

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

1. C.C. Nos.22918-22923, 22928, 22929, 22930 & 22931 of 2016 are taken on Board.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave granted.

4. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the State.

5. The appellants are aggrieved since they are denied compensation at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/-per acre which has been granted in respect of the same acquisition and in respect of the property in the same village of Mudhol Village and Taluk, Bagalkot District of Karnataka and acquired for the same purpose. It is seen that the High Court had, as a matter of fact, allowed certain appeals and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/-per acre, as per judgment dated 12.12.2012 passed in M.F.A. No.21191 of 2010 and other connected matters. That judgment has become final. Though the appellants filed review before the High Court on this ground, the same was turned down holding that it was not a ground for review.

7. Since the compensation at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/-has been granted in respect of the same acquisition and covered by the same notification and coming under the same village, we see no reason to deny the said benefit to the appellant.

8. Therefore, these appeals are allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/-per acre along with the statutory benefits.

9. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the order in review will stand modified to the above extent.

10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 11. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document