NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.5007-5024 OF 2002

Keshavadas Shridharao Savakar & Others  ..Appellant(s)

- Versus -

Assistant Commnr. & Land Acquisition  Officer & Another ..Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1.In these civil appeals, the dispute is primarily  

over the quantum of the market value of the land  

acquired  by  the  Government  of  Karnataka  

(hereinafter ‘the said Government’).

1

2. Pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4  

(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the  

Karnataka Gazette on 16.05.1991 an extent of 76  

acres and 10 guntas of land situated in Gadag  

were  acquired  for  Karnataka  Housing  Board  

(hereinafter ‘the Board’). The Land Acquisition  

Officer  determined  the  market  value  at  

Rs.35,000/- per acre and passed an award to that  

effect  on  5th March,  1994.  Assailing  the  said  

quantum, the landowners filed a reference. The  

Reference Court on a detailed consideration of  

the matter and after examining 22 witnesses and  

scrutinizing about 35 documents, which were made  

exhibits, fixed the market value of the acquired  

land  at  Rs.14,500/-  per  gunta,  apart  from  

granting other statutory benefits.

3.The  operative  portion  of  the  order  of  the  

Reference Court is set out below:

“1. Reference in L.A.C. No. 12/95 to 20/95  are accepted in part.

2

2. Market  value  in  respect  of  the  acquired  lands  is  determined  at  Rs.14,500/- per gunta.

3. The  claimants  are  entitled  to  additional market value at 12% p.a. on the  market value from the date of preliminary  notification to the date of the award of  the L. A. O. or the date of dispossession  whichever is earlier.

4. The claimants are entitled to solatium  at 30% on enhanced market value.

5. The  claimants  are  entitled  to  the  interest  at  9%  p.a.  on  the  enhanced  compensation  from  the  date  of  dispossession for a period of one year and  further  interest  at  15%  p.a.  on  the  enhanced  compensation  after  expiry  of  above  stated  one  year  till  the  date  of  payment.

6. The  original  Judgment  is  kept  in  L.A.C. No. 12/95 and copies are ordered to  be kept in L.A.C. No. 13/95 to 20/95.

(Dictated  to  the  stenographer,  typed  by  her, corrected by me and then pronounced  in open Court)

Gadag  Dated. 25.01.2000 (B. M. ANGADI)          Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadag.”

4.In  coming  to  the  aforesaid  findings,  the  

Reference  Court  made  it  clear  that  the  Land  

3

Acquisition Officer had not at all considered the  

non-agricultural  potentiality  of  the  acquired  

land,  even  though  the  land  was  within  the  

municipal limits. The Reference Court also relied  

on a map which was prepared by PW-1 showing the  

civil amenities in the vicinity of the acquired  

land.  The Reference  Court also  relied on  sale  

deeds Ext. P-8 to P-17.  

5.Being  aggrieved by  the order  of the  Reference  

Court  dated  25.1.2000,  the  claimants  filed  a  

Miscellaneous First Appeal before the High Court  

under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The  

High Court framed two questions:

i. Whether  the  finding  of  the  Reference Court that the fixation  of  market  value  by  LAO  is  inadequate, is correct?

ii. Whether the market value fixed by  the Reference Court at Rs.14,500/-  per  gunta  is  erroneous  and  requires interference?

4

6.After a lengthy discussion, the High Court held  

that the determination by the Reference Court on  

the basis of sale transactions (Ext. P-8 to P-17)  

is based on two premises. According to the High  

Court, the two premises were:

i. The  auction  sales  (disclosed  by  Ex. P 8 to Ex. P 17) reflect the  proper market value in the area.

ii. The sites sold under Ex. P 9 to P  17 are in close proximity to the  acquired land; that is sites 3, 4,  5,  6,  7  and  8  covered  by  sale  deeds (Ex. P 9 to Ex. P 14) are  within a distance of 60 mtrs. and  sites 1, 9, 12 and 13 covered by  sale deeds (Ex. P 8, P 15, P 16  and  P  17)  are  at  a  distance  of  about 500 mtrs. from the acquired  land.

7.The  High  Court  held  both  the  premises  to  be  

incorrect and did not uphold the decision of the  

Reference Court. However, the High Court noted  

that  the  Board,  the  beneficiary  of  the  

acquisition, had filed an application under Order  

XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for  

5

leading of further evidence stating therein that  

some  of  the  landowners  had  given  consent  to  

passing of an award at the rate of Rs.73,000/-  

per  acre. However,  those records  could not  be  

produced as they were burnt by fire. Under those  

circumstances,  the  Housing  Board  sought  an  

opportunity  to  let  in  further  evidence.  It  

appears  that  the  claimants  also  filed  an  

application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code  

of Civil Procedure for filing further evidence.  

In view of such petitions being filed, the High  

Court came to an opinion that the ends of justice  

require  that  the  parties  should  be  given  an  

opportunity to let in fresh evidence. The High  

Court,  thereafter,  quashed  the  judgment  under  

appeal and remanded the matter to the Reference  

Court with a direction to the parties to lead  

additional evidence.  

8.This Court is rather constrained to observe that  

it is difficult to appreciate the reasoning given  

6

by the High Court to remand the appeals after  

entering into detailed findings running into more  

than 50 pages.  

9. However, the matter is pending before this Court  

since 2002. The acquisition is of the year 1991.  

Therefore, about 20 years have elapsed since the  

initiation  of  acquisition  proceedings  and  the  

matter has been kept pending in this Court for  

about 9 years. In between attempts were made for  

settling the controversy on the basis of an offer  

made  by  the  landowners.  The  said  offer  was  

recorded by this Court in its order dated 15th  

November, 2007:

“Learned  senior  counsel  for  the  landowners has made a statement that his  clients are prepared to accept a deduction  of 70% as was found by the High Court. The  Housing board may consider the offer and  file  an  affidavit  regarding  the  price  which  they are  agreeable to  pay to  the  land owners as compensation.”

7

10. Again on 29th July, 2010 another offer was made by  

the  landowners  whereby  they  had  agreed  to  a  

reduction of 75% of the market value fixed by the  

Reference Court. But that was also not accepted  

by the Board. The order dated 29th July, 2010 is  

set out:

“After  the  arguments  were  heard  for  some time, the Court again suggested the  parties to work out an amicable settlement  of the rate on which deduction could be  made  from  the  price  of  the  sale  transactions  (Exhibit  8  to  17)  for  the  purpose of fixation of market value.

Mr.  S.  Balakrishnan,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  Karnataka  Housing  Board  very  graciously  submitted  that  he  will  again  impress  upon  the  authorities to agree to a deduction of 75%  instead of 70% as suggested by the learned  counsel for the appellants on an earlier  occasion.

On the request of the learned senior  counsel,  the  cases  are  adjourned  to  12.08.2010.”

11.Considering the facts and circumstances of this  

case  and  the  long  passage  of  time  that  has  

intervened, this Court is of the opinion that the  

8

ends  of  justice  will  not  be  served  if  the  

impugned order of the High Court of remitting the  

controversy to the Reference Court at this stage  

is allowed.

12.This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that  

the matter should be decided once and for all,  

having regard to the peculiar circumstances of  

this case and the time that has lapsed between  

the initiation of acquisition proceeding in 1991  

and  non-payment  of  the  compensation  to  the  

landowners  till  date.  Several  substitution  

applications are on record to show that many of  

the  original  landowners  have  expired  in  the  

course of these proceedings.  

13.Considering all these facts and the increasing  

value of the land and the decreasing value of  

money,  this  Court,  in  exercise  of  its  

jurisdiction  under  Article  142  of  the  

Constitution, is of the view that the proposal of  

9

the landowners of agreeing to 75% deduction on  

the  market value  fixed by  the Reference  Court  

would  meet  the  ends  of  justice.  This  Court,  

therefore, disposes of these appeals by directing  

the Housing Board to pay to the appellants the  

amount of compensation as fixed by the Reference  

Court  after  imposing  a  deduction  of  75%.  The  

appellants  would  also  be  entitled  to  all  the  

statutory benefits on the aforesaid amount.  

14.Such  payment  shall  be  made  by  the  Karnataka  

Housing  Board within  a period  of three  months  

from date, failing which it will have to pay an  

additional interest of 9% from the date of expiry  

of the period of three months till the date of  

actual payment. The appeals are, thus, disposed  

of.  No costs.

.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

1

.......................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi January 28, 2011

1