NINGAPPA THOTAPPA ANGADI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER on 13 December 2019

JUDGMENT

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2008passed by High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in M.F.ANo. 3274 of 2007 whereby the appeal filed by Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Hubli-Ankola against the award of the Reference Court wasallowed and the compensation for acquiring appellant’s land was reducedfrom Rs.10,00,000 per acre to Rs 5,10,000/- per acre.

3. The facts giving rise to the present controversy may be breiflynoted. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hubli, Ankola issuedNotification No. HB-LAW CR: 1/2002-2003 dated 18.4.2002 underSection 17(4) and 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring landsituated in Yellapur Village, Hubli Taluka for the purpose of constructionof Hubli Ankola Broad Gauge Railway Line with a further directionrestraining the affected land owners from alienating or creating chargeover the said land. A final notification under Section 17(1) and 6(1) ofthe Act was issued on 19.10.2002 for acquiring the said land.Subsequently, Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 17.3.2003with respect to the acquired land and fixed the market value at the rateof Rs.7,500/- per gunta. Aggrieved by the Land Acquisition Officer’saward, the appellant(s) and other similarly placed persons sought refenceunder Section 18 of the 1894 Act seeking enhancement of compensation.The Reference Court-cum-Principal Civil Judge, Hubli passed a commonorder on 12.10.2006 and relying upon an earlier award of its own inLAC No.44/2004 in which compensation of Rs 25,000/- per gunta hadbeen awarded, coupled with the fact that the acquired land in the presentcase and the land in LAC No. 44/2004 are located in adjoining villagesand in close proximity of Hubli City, the Reference Court enhanced thecompensation to Rs 25,000/- per gunta (Rs 10,00,000/- per acre).

4. Aggrieved by the afore-stated enhancement, the LandAcquisition Officer preferred appeals before the High Court of Karnatakacontending that the acquired land was actually ‘dry land’ and that someother modes for determining its current market value should also havebeen applied. On the other hand, the claimants—affected land ownersfiled cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation toRs 26,000/- per gunta. The High Court of Karnataka vide impugnedjudgment dated 24.11.2008 allowed appeals filed by the Land Acquisition B

CDEF

GH

AOfficer. The High Court observed that the same Land Acquisition Officerhad acquired some other land vide preliminary notification dated13.05.2005 for the same public purpose and claimants/land owners inthose proceedings entered into an agreement and a consent award waspassed granting Rs 6,00,000/- per acre. Having noted the exampler, theHigh Court held that lands of the present claimants which were acquiredB3 years prior to 13.05.2005, could not be granted compensation of Rs26,000 per guntas. Consequently, the High Court applied the principle ofannual depreciation @ 15% and modified the award passed by ReferenceCourt and reduced the compensation to Rs. 5,10,000/- per acre.

5. Some of the affected land owners filed Special Leave Petition(s)Cand this Court vide judgement dated 11.11.2016 passed in Civil AppealNo. 2927/2010 allowed their appeal and set aside the judgment of theHigh Court insofar as the appellant(s) in the said case were concernedand restored the compensation of Rs 10,00,000/- per acre as awardedby the Reference Court.D

6. The present appellant(s) who was/were also aggrieved by theimpugned judgment of Karnataka High Court did not file the appealalong with other similarly situated land owners. He has come to thisCourt after a considerable long period seeking parity with the otherexappropriated land owners and craves for restoration of theEcompensation as was awarded by the Reference Court. The shortquestion which, thus, falls for consideration is whether the appellant(s)whose predecessor-in-interest did not assail the High Court order inrespect of the land which is subject matter of this appeal as expeditiouslyas the other land owners under the same acquisition, be allowed to getthe same compensation despite a delay of 2928 days and if so, whetherFthey are entitled to seek interest as well?7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe record.

8. We find that the issue raised in this appeal is no longer res-Gintegra. This Court in Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Othersv. State of Haryana and Others[1] held that:

“14. The appellants are identically situated and there is no reasonto meet out a different treatment to them. We also note that, whilein these cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay H1 (2014) 14 SCC 127

and dismissed the LPAs of the appellants, other LPAs wereallowed by the High Court itself by condoning the delay of thesame magnitude in the same circumstances.

15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants’ interestfor the period for which they did not approach the Court. Thesubstantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to bedefeated on technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view ofself-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for landacquisition, we are of the view that approach of the Court has tobe pragmatic and not pedantic.

[Emphasis applied]

9. The afore-cited view has been consistently followed by thisCourt 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], it was observed that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petitioncannot be the reason to deny just and fair compensation to the claimants.This Court observed that a liberal approach should be adopted in suchlike matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and LandAcquisition Officer[3]also this Court condoned the delay and restoredparity in the matter of grant of compensation though with a condition“that for the period of delay in filing and in refiling the Special LeavePetitions, the appellant-claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any interest onthe enhanced compenation and statutory amount.”

10. It is undeniable that this Court vide judgment dated November11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010 (Ningappa Thotappa Angadiv. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order ofthe High Court and restored the compensation as was awarded by theReference Court. In the cited case, this Court held as follows:

“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to some lengthand carefully perused the material on record. We are of theconsidered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of theHigh Court deserves to be set aside and judgment and order passedby the Reference Court restored. We say so because, this Courthas in a similar appeal directed against the very same order setaside the impugned judgment and restored the enhancement 2 (2014) 14 SCC 133

3 (2019) SCC Online SC 990

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Agranted by the Reference Court. We see no reason to take adifferent view in the present case. We, accordingly, allow thisappeal and while setting aside the impugned judgment insofar asthe same relates to the appellant, restore the judgment and orderpassed by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, beartheir own costs.”

B

11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants. They are,thus, entitled to seek parity and claim the same amount of fair and justcompensation as has been awarded to other land owners. The appellant(s)are, however, not entitled to seek interest for the period for which theydid not approach this Court.C

12. For the reasons aforestated, the appeal is allowed in part, theimpugned 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 theappellant-claimant(s) by the Reference Court is restored. However, theappellant-claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhancedDcompensation and statutory amount for the period of delay of 2928 daysin filing the appeal. Ordered accordingly.

E

Divya Pandey

Appeal partly allowed.

F

G

H