REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9415  OF 2019 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C)No. 11015 OF 2017]

Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs. ..... Appellants(s)

                VERSUS

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another .....Respondents(s)

JUDGMENT

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)

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

2

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 judgement  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 exappropriated land

owners and craves for restoration of the compensation as was awarded by

3

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 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?

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

8. We find that the issue raised in this appeal is no longer res-integra.

This Court in Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Others v. State of

Haryana and Others1 held that:

“14. The appellants are identically situated and there is no reason to meet out a different treatment to them.  We also note that, while in these cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay and  dismissed  the  LPAs  of  the  appellants,  other  LPAs  were allowed by  the  High Court  itself  by  condoning the  delay  of  the same magnitude in the same circumstances.

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 pragmatic and not pedantic.

[Emphasis applied]

9. The afore-cited view has been consistently followed by this Court in

a series of cases before and after the decision in  Dhiraj Singh’s (dead)

case (supra).  In Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.2,

1(2014) 14 SCC 127  2 2014 14 SCC 133

4

it was observed that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition cannot

be the reason to deny just and fair compensation to the claimants.  This

Court  observed that  a liberal  approach should be adopted in such like

matters.   In  Huchanagouda  v.  Assistant  Commissioner  and  Land

Acquisition Officer3  also this Court  condoned the delay and restored

parity in the matter of grant of compensation though with a condition “that

for the period of delay in filing and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions,

the  appellant-claimant(s)  shall  not  be  entitled  to  any  interest  on  the

enhanced compenation and statutory amount.”

10. It is undeniable that this Court vide judgment dated November 11,

2016  passed  in  C.A.  No.  2927/2010  (Ningappa  Thotappa  Angadi  v.

Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order of the High

Court and restored the compensation as was awarded by the Reference

Court.  In the cited case, this Court held as follows:

“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to some length and  carefully  perused  the  material  on  record.   We  are  of  the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of  the High  Court  deserves  to  be  set  aside  and  judgment  and  order passed by the Reference Court restored.  We say so because, this Court has in a similar appeal directed against the very same order set aside the impugned judgment and restored the enhancement granted  by  the  Reference  Court.   We  see  no  reason  to  take  a different  view  in  the  present  case.   We,  accordingly,  allow  this appeal and while setting aside the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to the appellant, restore the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court.  The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.”  

11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants. They are, thus,

3 2019 SCC Online SC 990

5

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.

12. For  the  reasons  aforestated,  the  appeal  is  allowed  in  part,  the

impugned order passed by the High Court dated 24.11.2008 in M.F.A. No.

3274/2007 is set aside and the award passed in favour of the appellant-

claimant(s) by the Reference Court is restored.  However, the appellant-

claimant(s)  shall  not  be  entitled  to  any  interest  on  the  enhanced

compensation and statutory amount for the period of delay of 2928 days in

filing the appeal.  Ordered accordingly.

……………………………..J. (S.A. BOBDE)

CJI

……..……………………..J. (B.R. GAVAI)

…………………………… J. (SURYA KANT)

NEW DELHI

DATED : 13.12.2019

6