Kritika Pandey | Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda | 17th December 2019
Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs. vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another
Facts:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hubli, Ankola issued notification 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 for acquiring the said land. Subsequently, Land Acquisition Officer passed an award 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 referenceunder 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).
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 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 exemplar, 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.
Some of the affected land owners filed Special Leave Petition(s) and Supreme Court 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.
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 Supreme Court after a considerable long period seeking parity with the other expropriated land owners and craves for restoration of the compensation as was awarded by the Reference Court.
ISSUE:
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?
HELD:
It was held 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.
It was held that it is undeniable that this Court passed a judgment in 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. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants. They are also 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.
Leave a Reply