Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7269 OF 2013

Defence Research & Development Organization         ….Appellant

VERSUS Anjanappa & Anr.                   ….Respondents

WITH  

SLP (C) NO (s). 1046-1059 of 2009  SLP(C) NO(s).  17875-17881 of 2009  SLP(C) NO(s).  29763-29765 of 2010  SLP(C) NO(s).  31805-31806 of 2010  SLP(C) NO(s). 35767-35778 of 2010  SLP(C) NO(s). 14378-14379 of 2013  

SLP(C) NO(s).  767-768 of 2011  SLP(C) NO(s). 23294-23337 of 2012  

SLP (C) NO(s). 22532 of 2010  SLP(C) NO(s). 22533-22534 of 2010  SLP(C) NO(s). 22535-22536 of 2010  SLP(C) NO(s). 22538-22539 of 2010  SLP(C) NO(s). 25647-25648 of 2010  SLP(C) NO(s). 25649-25652 of 2010  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1425 of 2013  

O R D E R

1. All  these  appeals  and  Special  Leave  Petitions  have  been  

preferred against various impugned judgments and orders passed by  

the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in various appeals including

Page 2

M.A. No. 2588 of 2004 by which the High Court has enhanced the  

amount of compensation.  

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise  to these appeals  and  

special  leave  petitions  mostly  disposed  of  by  a  common judgment  

impugned before us had been that:   

A. A huge chunk of land stood notified under Section 4 of  the  

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide  

Notifications dated 4.3.1993, 13.5.1993 and 2.6.1995 for the use of  

Defence Research and Development Organisation and the possession  

was taken after completing all the requirements under the Act.  The  

persons interested therein filed their claims under Section 5 of the Act  

and led evidence, on the basis of which the Special Land Acquisition  

Officer (hereinafter called as the `SLAO’) had assessed the market  

value of the land as Rs. 60,000/- per acre.  

B.  Aggrieved, the respondents approached the Reference Court by  

filing  applications  under  Section  18  of  the  Act  and  the  Reference  

Court vide award dated 30.11.2002 assessed the market value at the  

rate of Rs. 3,15,000/- per acre and Rs.3,45000/- per acre with respect  

to Notifications dated 4.3.1993, 13.5.1993 and 2.6.1995 respectively.  

2

Page 3

C. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed appeals under Section 54 of  

the  Act  for  reducing the  amount  of  compensation  before  the  High  

Court.   Respondents  preferred  cross-objections  which  have  been  

allowed and the appeals of the Union of India have been dismissed.  

The High Court further enhanced the market value of land at the rate  

of Rs. 7,70,000/- in respect of land acquired under Notifications dated  

4.3.1993 and 13.5.1993 and enhanced the market value of the land  

covered under the Notification dated 2.6.1995  to Rs.8,40,000/-.   

Hence, these appeals and special leave petitions.   

3. The High Court had adopted the method of 10 per cent increase  

every year in the market value of the land and used the exemplar to  

conclude that the appellant cannot be permitted to acquire the land of  

the respondents at the price lesser than the market value of their land.  

The Court placed reliance on the earlier judgments of the Division  

Bench of  the High Court  of  Karnataka and held that  the land was  

comparable to the lands wherein the award dated 13.11.2002 had been  

delivered  in  LAC No.  263  of  1996.   The  land  in  question  had  a  

potential value on the date of preliminary Notification as was evident  

from the oral evidence adduced before the Reference Court.  There  

was no dispute that the land which was subject matter of LAC 263 of  

3

Page 4

1996  and  the  lands  in  question  were  in  contiguous  and  same  

geographical situation.  After reaching the conclusion by the court, the  

award was given as per the market value as referred to hereinabove.   

4. The High Court relied upon the judgment in earlier case in LAC  

No. 263 of 1996 and reached the aforesaid conclusion. Considering  

the  geographical  situation  of  the  land,  it  cannot  be  held  that  

compensation awarded is not justified.  

We do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned  

judgment and order, the appeals and special leave petitions lack merit  

and are accordingly dismissed.  

….………………………..........J.                                                  (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

……….......................................J.                                                             (J. CHELAMESWAR)

NEW DELHI; February 26, 2014.

4