SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 943

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Huchanagouda – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 5976 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).18232 of 2019 @ SLP(C) Diary No.27982 of 2017) with Civil Appeal No(s).5977 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).18233 of 2019 @ SLP(C) Diary No(s). 27981 of 2017)
Decided on : 30-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sharanagouda Patil,Adv. Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Naveen R. Nath,Adv. Mr. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Mrs.Lalit Mohini Bhat,adv. Mr. Rahul Jain,Adv.

The Court should adopt a liberal approach in land acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation, balancing equities and not allowing substantive rights to be defeated on technical grounds.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Market Value - Imrat Lal and Others v. Land Acquisition Collector and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 133; Dhiraj Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. And Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 127; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, (2008) 14 SCC 745

Fact of the Case:

The Government notified the lands for acquisition for the purpose of rehabilitating the Veerapur villagers. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the land at Rs.24,500/-per acre, which was raised to Rs.1,26,500/-per acre by the Court. The High Court further raised the market value to Rs.1,56,000/-per acre, and the claimants sought further enhancement.

Finding of the Court:

The delay in filing the special leave petition cannot be the reason to deny just and fair compensation to the claimants. The Court should adopt a liberal approach in land acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation. The delay in filing and refiling the special leave petitions cannot be a reason to deny the consideration of the matter on merits regarding the claim of the appellant for just and fair compensation.

Issues: The main issue was the determination of just and fair compensation for land acquisition, considering the delay in filing the special leave petition and the potential development of the acquired land.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court should adopt a liberal approach in land acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation, balancing equities and not allowing substantive rights to be defeated on technical grounds. The potential development of the acquired land should be considered in determining the market value.

Final Decision: The compensation awarded to the appellants-claimants was enhanced to Rs.2,35,795/-per acre, and they were not entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory amount. The impugned judgments of the High Court were modified to the extent indicated above and the appeals were partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

BANUMATHI, J:

1. Leave granted.

2. The Government notified the lands in-question for acquisition for the purpose of rehabilitating the Veerapur villagers on account of implementation of Hirehalla project on 16.10.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 08.03.2006 fixing the value of the land at the rate of Rs.24,500/-per acre. In reference, the Court raised the market value to Rs.1,26,500/-per acre. In appeal, the High Court has taken into account the market value determined in respect of acquisition under another Notification dated 24.11.1994, pointing out that the present notification is dated 16.10.2003 and there being a gap of about eight years and ten months and twenty two days from the earlier Notification dated 24.11.1994, the High court granted 5% escalation for the gap of about nine years between 24.11.1994 and 16.10.2003 and arrived at the market value of Rs.1,55,133/-which is rounded off to Rs.1,56,000/-per acre. Being aggrieved, the claimants have preferred these appeals seeking further enhancement.

3. We have heard Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Navin R. Nath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and also perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.

4. Mr. Navin R. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that SLP(C)No.22784 of 2016 arising out of the same project had been filed by another land owner. The said special leave petition was mainly dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 10.01.2018 mainly on the ground of delay in filing the special leave petition.

5. Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants, has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Imrat Lal and Others v. Land Acquisition Collector and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 133, and has submitted that in case of land acquisition matters there is necessity to take the judicial notice of the fact that in India villagers are by and large poor and therefore the delay in filing the special leave petition cannot be the reason to deny the just and fair compensation to the claimants. It was submitted that the Court should adopt liberal approach where there is a delay in filing the special leave petition. This Court in para ‘11’ of Imrat Lal (Supra) has held as under:

“11. We can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers in our country are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually guided by their co-villagers, who are familiar with the proceedings in the Courts or the advocates with whom they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of half baked information made available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal approach and either grant time to the party to file better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly situated persons who were affected by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court have been granted relief.”

6. We further take note that this Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. And Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 127, has considered the issue relating to condonation of delay in land acquisition matters and the manner in which the equities are to be balanced. It is held therein as hereunder:

“15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants’ interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the court has to be pragmati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top