Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, N.V.ANJARIA, JJ.
Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1388 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No. 1354 of 2013
Decided On : 30-04-2026
(A) Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Scope and ambit – In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, High Court cannot act as an appellate court, nor can it sit in appeal over correctness of orders passed by Courts and Tribunals over which it exercises power of superintendence under Article 227 – Power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or Tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or Tribunals – High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on face of record – Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when final finding is justified or can be supported. (Paras 31, 35 and 36)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 34 – Interest – In absence of any stipulation regarding interest in a compromise decree, a party cannot claim interest as a matter of right – Determination has already been made by High Court in W.P. No. 25158 of 2012, by Order dated 11.06.2013, determining rate of interest – None of parties to present proceedings have brought to notice of Court that said order having been set aside, modified, or varied – In the event of said order, having being challenged by either of parties, order passed thereon would be binding on both parties and direction for payment of interest would be subject to result of said proceedings. (Para 39)
Facts of the case:
Following points arise for consideration:
i. Whether High Court exceeded its jurisdiction conferred upon under Article 227 of Constitution of India?
ii. Whether High Court was justified in interfering with findings recorded by Executing Court?
Findings of Court:
Civil Appeal No. 1354 of 2013 has been filed by Decree Holders seeking restoration of order passed by Executing Court. Having held that the High Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction while exercising power under Article 227 of Constitution, the said appeal preferred by the Decree Holders deserves to be allowed.
Result : Civil Appeals partly allowed.
Key Points: - The High Court’s supervisory power under Article 227 is not an appellate remedy and cannot substitute its own findings unless there is grave error or perverse reasoning (!) (!) (!) . - The Executing Court fixed compensation at Rs. 1,000 per sq ft based on the 17.04.2007 Notification, including a 25% enhancement for proximity to a State Highway, and excluded Instruction No. 6 applying to industrial layouts unless applicable (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court erred by impleading the State and relying on its interpretation of the notification, effectively acting as an appellate court and misapplying the guideline-value framework (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court ultimately held that the guideline-value determination must align with the Government notification in force on the date of the compromise (08/2007) and that the Executing Court’s approach adopting Rs. 1,000 per sq ft was correct; the High Court’s interference was improper (!) (!) . - The final order restores the Executing Court’s determination at Rs. 1,000 per sq ft for the Schedule Land and directs payment of the balance with interest as previously decided in related proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. The Judgment Debtors, namely Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (N.I.C.E.) and Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises1[Both the Judgment Debtors are together hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I.C.E’.], and the Decree Holders, namely Sri B. Gurappa Naidu and Smt. Sunitha2[Hereinafter referred to as the Decree Holders.], are before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1388 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 1354 of 2013, respectively, assailing the judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka3[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’.] in Writ Petition. No. 21068 of 20124[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’.]. By the impugned judgment, the High Court modified the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru5[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Executing Court’.], in Execution Petition No. 2237 of 20096[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Execution Petition’.], whereby the value of the property bearing Survey No. 122 (New Survey No. 272/2) of Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 3 acres 6 guntas out of a total extent of 6 acres 10 guntas7[3 Acre 6 guntas out of 6 Acre 10 guntas of Survey No. 122 (New Survey No. 272/2), of Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk i.e. the Property for which the guideline value has been determined is hereinafter referred to as the ‘Schedule Land’ or ‘AA Schedule property’.], which had been determined at Rs.1,000/-per square feet came to be reduced to Rs.500/- per square feet.
2. Civil Appeal No. 1388 of 2013, filed by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (N.I.C.E.), assails the determination of compensation payable in respect of the schedule land at the rate of Rs.500/- per square foot and seek for reduction. On the other hand, Civil Appeal No. 1354 of 2013, preferred by the Decree Holders, challenges the fixation of compensation at Rs.500/- per square foot and seeks restoration of the valuation as fixed by Executing Court at Rs.1,000/- per square feet, on the basis of the guideline value determined under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.8[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Guideline Value’.]
PART-I
BRIEF FACTS:
3. As the case involves a lengthy history, it is discussed in brief in this section under various sub-heads forming a part of this section, which as under:
A. THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND TO N.I.C.E FOR EXECUTION OF BANGALORE – MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR PROJECT (BMICP):
4. A Framework Agreement was executed between Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (N.I.C.E.) and the Government of Karnataka for the execution of the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (hereinafter referred to as “the BMICP”) under an agreement dated 03.04.1997. Among the several parcels of land allotted to N.I.C.E. for implementation of the said project, the lands belonging to the Decree Holders, namely the schedule land admeasuring 3 acres 6 guntas out of a total extent of 6 acres 10 guntas in Survey No. 122 (New Survey No. 272/2), Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was also allotted to N.I.C.E by the Government. The said land was earmarked for the construction of a ramp of Interchange No. 5/7 on Mysore Road, and construction activities in that regard were initiated in the year 2006.
5. Though the schedule land was initially classified as agricultural land, the same was subsequently converted for industrial use on an application made by the owner, pursuant to an order dated 05.11.2004 passed by the competent authority.
B. THE SUIT FILED BY N.I.C.E AGAINST THE DECREE HOLDERS AND THE COMPROMISE ENTERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
6. Alleging interference with the implementation of the BMICP, N.I.C.E instituted a suit in O.S. No.4691 of 20069[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Suit’.] before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru against the Decree Holders seeking the prayer of perma
(1) Supervisory jurisdiction – High Court cannot act as an appellate court, nor can it sit in appeal over correctness of orders passed by Courts and Tribunals over which it exercises power of superin....
Market value for land acquisition must be assessed based on comparable sales proximate to the acquisition date, reflecting fair compensation principles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the theory of deduction cannot be applied in cases governed by statutory guidelines, and the impugned order passed by the Court below did not ....
Market value in land acquisition cases must reflect current assessments by expert committees rather than outdated valuations, ensuring fair compensation aligns with statutory requirements.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
