Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,MALAPRABHA DAM PROJECT,
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MADIVALAPPA BASALINGAPPA MELAVANKI ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (5) 592 1995 SCALE (5)66
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 1995 7871 OF 1995
[Arising out of SLP [C] No. 8589 of 1989 ]
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The Court of Civil Judge in L.A.C. Nos. 263 and batch
by award and decree dated 14th December, 1981 enhanced the
compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer from
Rs. 3,000/- per acre to Rs. 15,000/- per acre. On appeal,
under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act [for short,
’the Act’] the IInd Additional District Judge, Belgaum by
his common judgment dated 24th August, 1983 confirmed the
same. The High Court by the impugned order dated 29th
January, 1988 in Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 44 of 1985
and batch held that in determining compensation on the basis
of the annual yield application of 15 years multiplier would
be illegal, as held in Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Davangere vs. P. Veerabhadarappa etc. etc. [AIR 1984 SC 774
]. As for this decision, appropriate multiplier is 10. This
view was reiterated in a number of decisions.
However, the learned Judge declined to interfere with
the order on the ground that the land in acquisition in
this case was only of an extent of 38 gunthas and it was
held that "it is hardly appropriate to interfere with the
award notwithstanding the discernible blemish pointed out by
the learned Government Pleader". The learned Judge also
applied the provisions of Sections 23 (1-A); 23 [2] and 28
of the Act as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984 holding
that it would be subject to the result in Bhag Singh & Ors.
vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh [(1985) 2 SCC 737 ].
Since on merits, the learned Judge was not inclined to
interfere with the determination of compensation applying 15
years multiplier, the land in question being a small extent
of land, on facts of this case, we are also not inclined to
upset the wrong application of law. However, it would not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
operate as a precedent to any future case or other cases
arising from the same notification. All cases need to be
decided applying only 10 years multiplier. However, the
claimants are not entitled to the benefits under the
Amendment Act 68 of 1984. It is settled law that if the
claim is pending before the reference Court on or after
coming into force of the Amendment Act., viz., September 24,
1984, the Amendment Act gets attracted for pending claims
during that interregnum. Since the award of the Reference
Court is of December 14, 1981, i.e., much prior to the date
when the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill was introduced, the
claimants are not entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the
enhanced compensation, additional amount @ 12 per cent per
annum of the enhanced compensation from the date of award or
taking over possession whichever is earlier and interest as
provided in the proviso to Section 28 of the Act as amended
under Act 68 of 1984, i.e., 9 per cent for one year and 15
per cent thereafter from the date of taking over possession
till date of deposit or payment whichever is earlier. But
the respondent-claimants are entitled to 15 per cent
solatium on the enhanced compensation and 5 per cent
interest per annum on the enhanced compensation as amended
by the local Act, from the date of taking over possession
till the date of deposit or payment, whichever is earlier.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No. costs.