Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4041 OF 2024
SHRIPAL & ANR. ...Appellant(s)
VERSUS
KARNATAKA NERAVARI
NIGAM LTD. & ANR. …Respondent(s)
WITH
2024 INSC 386
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4042 OF 2024
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4043 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. The appellants herein, who were land losers, have
approached this Court by way of these appeals seeking
Signature Not Verified
enhancement of compensation pursuant to acquisition of their
Digitally signed by
Deepak Singh
Date: 2024.05.07
13:17:29 IST
Reason:
lands by the respondents for the purpose of construction of
canals under the Hippargi Barrage project.
1
2. There is no dispute that the lands of the appellants were
irrigated lands. The land acquisition notification under Section
th
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 12 April,
2007. The Special Land Acquisition Officer(S.L.A.O.) awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,31,263/- per acre to the land
owners.
3. The land owners preferred a reference and the Reference
Court enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value of
the land at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the beneficiaries being respondent-
Karnaktaka Neravari Nigam Ltd. filed M.F.A. No. 100175 of 2014
before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench wherein, the
appellant-claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement
of compensation.
5. In the High Court, the cross-objectors i.e. appellants herein
contended that in another M.F.A. No. 23768 of 2013, the High
Court had awarded compensation by fixing the market value at
Rs. 3,69,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits so far as the
irrigated lands are concerned.
6. The said matter arose out of an acquisition notification of
the years 2004-2005 and the order passed by the High Court has
2
been confirmed by this Court with dismissal of Special Leave
Petition(C) No. 8107 of 2016 filed by the beneficiary.
7. Shri Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned senior counsel
representing the appellants drew the Court’s attention to an order
th
dated 17 April, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Karnataka wherein, for the very same project, the
land owners had been awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.5,00,000/- per acre in respect of lands which are covered
under the notifications issued between 2004-2008. He, thus,
urged that the appellants are entitled to the same relief.
8. Per contra, Mr. Navin R. Nath, learned senior counsel
representing the respondent-beneficiary pointed out that the High
Court committed a glaring error in construing the affidavit filed
by the respondents in MFA No.101083 of 2016. He urged that in
the said matter, the affidavit which was filed pertained to an
acquisition of 2009, wherein the Reference Court had determined
compensation at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.
9. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and after going through the
material available on record, we find that the respondents
themselves have agreed to award the market value at the rate of
Rs. 3,69,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits for the lands
3
acquired under the notification of the years 2004-2005.
10. For the market value fixed in the years 2004-2005 at the
rate of Rs.3,69,000/- per acre, an escalation of 5 per cent per
year has already been applied.
11. For the lands acquired in the year 2009, the market value
had been fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre
and above.
12. The lands of the appellants herein were acquired in the year
2007.
13. In this background, we feel that ends of justice would be met
if the market value of the lands acquired from the appellants is
nd
fixed at Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre by modifying the order dated 2
February, 2018 passed by the High Court.
14. Accordingly, we hereby direct that the appellant-claimants
shall be entitled to compensation towards the acquired lands at
the rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits,
interest and costs. However, the direction of the High Court to
deny interest for the period of delay in filing the cross-objections
is sustained.
15. This order is being passed in peculiar facts of the present
case and shall not be treated as precedent.
16. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
4
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
. …………………………J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
May 07, 2024
5