Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., B.R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs - Appellants
Versus
The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.9415 of 2019 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition(C)No. 11015 of 2017]
Decided On : 13-12-2019
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Reference – Reduction in quantum of compensation – Compensation for acquiring appellant’s land was reduced from Rs.10,00,000 per acre to Rs 5,10,000/- per acre by Reference Court – Delay in filing Special Leave Petition cannot be reason to deny just and fair compensation to claimants – Appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants – They are entitled to seek parity and claim same amount of fair and just compensation as has been awarded to other land owners – Appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this Court – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside and award passed in favour of appellant-claimant(s) by Reference Court restored. (Paras 9, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2008 passed by High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in M.F.A No. 3274 of 2007 whereby the appeal filed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hubli-Ankola against the award of the Reference Court was allowed and compensation for acquiring appellant’s land was reduced from Rs.10,00,000 per acre to Rs 5,10,000/- per acre. Short question which, thus, falls for consideration is whether the appellant(s) whose predecessor-in-interest did not assail High Court order in respect of the land which is subject matter of this appeal as expeditiously as the other land owners under the same acquisition, be allowed to get the same compensation despite a delay of 2928 days and if so, whether they are entitled to seek interest as well?
Findings of Court:
Appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants. They are, thus, entitled to seek parity and claim the same amount of fair and just compensation as has been awarded to other land owners. The appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this Court.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2008 passed by High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in M.F.A No. 3274 of 2007 whereby the appeal filed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hubli-Ankola against the award of the Reference Court was allowed and the compensation for acquiring appellant’s land was reduced from Rs.10,00,000 per acre to Rs.5,10,000/- per acre.
3. The facts giving rise to the present controversy may be breifly noted. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hubli, Ankola issued Notification No. HB-LAW CR: 1/2002-2003 dated 18.4.2002 under Section 17(4) and 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring land situated in Yellapur Village, Hubli Taluka for the purpose of construction of Hubli Ankola Broad Gauge Railway Line with a further direction restraining the affected land owners from alienating or creating charge over the said land. A final notification under Section 17(1) and 6(1) of the Act was issued on 19.10.2002 for acquiring the said land. Subsequently, Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 17.3.2003 with respect to the acquired land and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.7,500/-per gunta. Aggrieved by the Land Acquisition Officer’s award, the appellant(s) and other similarly placed persons sought refence under Section 18 of the 1894 Act seeking enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court-cum-Principal Civil Judge, Hubli passed a common order on 12.10.2006 and relying upon an earlier award of its own in LAC No.44/2004 in which compensation of Rs.25,000/-per gunta had been awarded, coupled with the fact that the acquired land in the present case and the land in LAC No. 44/2004 are located in adjoining villages and in close proximity of Hubli City, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,000/- per gunta (Rs.10,00,000/- per acre).
4. Aggrieved by the afore-stated enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred appeals before the High Court of Karnataka contending that the acquired land was actually ‘dry land’ and that some other modes for determining its current market value should also have been applied. On the other hand, the claimants—affected land owners filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs 26,000/-per gunta. The High Court of Karnataka vide impugned judgment dated 24.11.2008 allowed appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court observed that the same Land Acquisition Officer had acquired some other land vide preliminary notification dated 13.05.2005 for the same public purpose and claimants/land owners in those proceedings entered into an agreement and a consent award was passed granting Rs.6,00,000/-per acre. Having noted the exampler, the High Court held that lands of the present claimants which were acquired 3 years prior to 13.05.2005, could not be granted compensation of Rs.26,000 per guntas. Consequently, the High Court applied the principle of annual depreciation @ 15% and modified the award passed by Reference Court and reduced the compensation to Rs.5,10,000/-per acre.
5. Some of the affected land owners filed Special Leave Petition(s) and this Court vide judgment dated 11.11.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2927/2010 allowed their appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court insofar as the appellant(s) in the said case were concerned and restored the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-per acre as awarded by the Reference Court.
6. The present appellant(s) who was/were also aggrieved by the impugned judgment of Karnataka High Court did not file the appeal along with other similarly situated land owners. He has come to this Court after a considerable long period seeking parity with the other ex-appropriated land owners and craves for restoration of the compensation as was awarded by the Reference Court. The short question which, thus, falls for consideration is whether the appellant(s) whose predecessor-in-interest did not assail the High
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
