Full Judgment Text
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] No. 4782 of 2009
CC 14290/2008
Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K.Project… Appellant
Vs.
Mahaboob & Anr. … Respondents
O R D E R
R. V. Raveendran J.,
This case relates to acquisition of 1 acre 13 guntas
of land belonging to respondents 1 and 2. Notification
under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
issued on 20.12.1990. The land Acquisition Officer, by
award dated 11.9.1991, assessed the compensation at
Rs.4,000/- per acre. The reference court, by award dated
10.3.2005, increased the compensation to Rs.30,420/- per
acre, by capitalizing the agricultural income from the
crops of jowar and tur. The petitioner filed an appeal,
contending that the compensation was excessive. The said
2
appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court on
23.12.2005. The second appeal by the petitioner was also
dismissed by the High Court on 26.10.2007. By this
petition, the petitioner seeks special leave to appeal
against the said judgment.
Drafting of Special Leave Petition
2. The petition states that the following “questions of
law of general importance” arise for consideration :
(i) Whether the High Court was right in
dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner
without considering the merits of the case, only
on the ground that there is delay in filing the
application seeking condonation of delay in
filing the application for bringing the legal
representatives of the deceased respondent No.1
on record?
(ii) Whether the High Court was right in
dismissing the appeal even without considering
the application for condonation of delay in
filing the application for bringing the legal
representatives of the deceased Respondents on
record, when the petitioner has explained the
delay in filing with cogent reasons which
constitutes ‘sufficient cause’ as contemplated
under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
(iii) Whether the High Court was right in
dismissing the appeal without appreciating the
fact that the separate value for fodder cannot be
taken into account for determination of market
value of the land.
3
Strangely none of these questions relates to this case nor
arise in this case. Neither of the claimants-respondents
died, though question (i) gives an impression that first
respondent had died and question (ii) gives an impression
that both respondents died during the pendency of the
appeal before the High Court. No application was filed
either for bringing the legal representatives of any
respondent on record, or for condoning the delay in filing
such application. Nor did the High Court refer to or take
into consideration the value of fodder separately for
determination of compensation, as stated in question (iii).
3. We may next turn to the grounds on which leave to
appeal is sought. The only two grounds mentioned in the
special leave petition are extracted below :
“5.1: It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court
misdirected itself on facts and in law which has
resulted in the passing of an erroneous order and
the same is liable to be set aside.
5.2: It is submitted that the petitioner herein
had acquired the land in Sy.No.139/3 (Dry)
measuring 01-13 situated at Magangere under
Section 4(1) Notification dated 20.12.1990 and
the award is passed on 10.3.2005 determining the
market value at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The
respondents, being not satisfied with the said
amount, filed a petition under Section 18(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement. The
Reference Court, after registering the case in
L.A.C. No.907/2000 and after hearing the parties,
4
enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.4,000/-
to Rs.30,420/- dated 10.3.2005. The petitioner,
being aggrieved by the same, filed L.A.C. Appeal
Nos.67 and 68 of 2005. The learned III Addl.
District Judge, after hearing the parties,
dismissed the appeal by the judgment dated
23.12.2005 in L.A.C. No.67/2005. Being aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner presented the above
Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.121/2006 (before
the High Court).”
The first para contains a standard ground usually
incorporated in appeals/special leave petitions. The second
para is not a ground for seeking leave to appeal, but
merely a narration of facts. Thus in effect there is no
ground on which leave to appeal is sought.
4. Thus the special leave petition (‘SLP’ for short) is
filed without any grounds in support of it or questions of
law. The possibility of any mix up in typing is ruled out
because Para 5.2 narrates the facts correctly and other
portions of the petition show that it relates to the case
on hand. The notings at the end of the memorandum of
special leave petition states that it has been “Drawn by
‘B’, High Court Government pleader” and “Filed by ‘A’,
Advocate for the petitioner State”. It is a matter of
concern that minimum care is not taken even to verify the
petition before filing. The frequency of carelessly drafted
5
SLPs is rapidly increasing. The very purpose of requiring
SLPs to be filed only through Advocates-on-record would be
defeated if SLPs prepared by some other counsel are
mechanically filed without examination or verification by
the Advocate-on-record. The remedy by way of special leave
under Article 136 of the Constitution is an extra-ordinary
remedy, intended to be invoked in special cases and should
not be treated so casually, negligently or routinely.
Delay in filing
5. We may now turn to the aspect relating to delay of 135
days in filing the SLP. The reasons given for explaining
the delay is typical, and extracted below.
“2. The impugned order is dated 26.10.2007. The
State has applied for issue of Certified copy of
the impugned Order on 7.11.2007and the same was
ready and delivered on 21.1.2008. The Certified
Copy of the judgment passed in MSA No. 121/2006
and the opinion of the Government Advocate, High
Court was sent to the Special Officer, Legal Cell
and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary to Government,
UKP, vide letter No. 6584/AGA/07-08 dated
24.1.2008. The Special Officer, Legal Cell, UKP,
has forwarded the same to the government vide
letter no. LAW-UKP-134/2006-07/LC-01032-2008 on
12.2.2008. This was received in R & I Section on
18.2.2008. It was mis-sent to Lit.VII Section by
R & I Section and on 17.2.2008, the letter was
returned to Lit.VII Section and on 23.2.2008, it
was marked to the case worker.
6
3. The case worker has submitted the file on
25.2.2008 and on the same day, it was sent to the
Deputy Secretary, Law Department. The Deputy
Secretary has sent the file to Addl. Law
Secretary-II on 4.3.2008. Addl.Law Secretary-II
has sent the file to Secretary, Law Department on
11.3.2008 with a note to prefer an appeal. The
Law Secretary, law Department has sent the file
to the Advisor to Governor on the same day. On
16.3.2008 Advisor to Governor has approved and
the file was sent to Deputy Secretary on
18.3.2008 with an instruction to prefer an appeal
to this Hon’ble Court. The file was sent to the
Section on 20.3.2008 to issue the Government
Order for preferring an appeal. The file was
marked to the case worker on 24.3.2008 and a
draft Government Order was submitted on
26.3.2008. The draft was approved on the same
day and was typed on the same day. Fair copy of
the Government was signed on 28.3.2008 and was
issued on the same day.
4. Requisition was given to C & M Section on
8.4.2008 to secure file. The file was issued on
8.4.2008. The office has written a letter to the
concerned authority for want of certified copy
and delay note on 8.4.2008. Then entire file was
put up to Administrative Officer for obtaining
allotment of Government Advocate and the same was
returned to Section on 3.4.2008 and accordingly
file was handed over to Government Advocate
immediately for drafting Special Leave Petition.
5. After going through the papers and
discussions with departmental officers, the
Government Advocate has drafted the Special Leave
petition and list of dates and sent back the file
to Supreme Court Section on 30.5.2008. The
already called delay note was not received till
30.5.2008, a reminder letter was also sent on
31.5.2008 to secure delay note and, the said
delay note was received on 7.6.2008 and once
again file was put up to Government Advocate for
drafting I.A. for condonation of delay on the
same day. The Government Advocate drafted the
said I.A. for condonation of delay and sent back
7
the file to Supreme Court section on 10.6.2008
for further process.
6. And further, an intimation has been given to
the litigation conducting officer on 11.6.2008
for swearing necessary affidavits. In the mean
while necessary papers given to typing and got
Xeroxed in requisite number of copies
immediately. The litigation conducting officer
came to Bangalore and sworn the affidavit in the
third week of June, 2008 and further after
setting all the papers pertains Special Leave
Petition and proper arrangements have been made
to send Special Leave petition to legal cell at
New Delhi for filing before Supreme Court
immediately.
7. The delay if any is not an intentional one.
It is due to the administrative procedure and
heavy work in the Law Department. Hence, it is
requested to condone the delay caused.”
We have already referred to the result of so many
consultations, legal opinions, discussion, and drafting
sessions. When compared to the usual explanations offered
by State Governments for delays, we should say that the
delay is less than normal and explanation is more detailed
than what is usually given. By the applicable standards,
the delay has to be condoned.
6. More than half the number of SLPs filed in the Supreme
Court are by the State Governments and Union of India.
About 90% of these SLPs are filed with applications for
condonation of delay. The delay is usually condoned keeping
in view, the administrative snarls and bottlenecks,
governmental procedures and the public interest. But there
is an urgent need to streamline the ‘decision making
8
process’ in filing ‘special leave petitions’ and reduce the
delay. Delays in filing, in virtually every SLP by the
government/s, make a mockery of the provision relating to
limitation and the meaning of ‘sufficient cause’.
Plight of land losers
7. We may now advert to the facts of this case. The
acquisition is of the year 1990. The extent of land
acquired is 1 acre 13 guntas. The Land Acquisition Officer
awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- per acre which is about nine
paise per sq.ft. Not much argument is needed to show that
the compensation was very low. The total compensation as
per the award of the LAO made in 1991, was Rs.5,300/-
(excluding statutory additions). Having lost his land, and
consequently, the means of livelihood, the land loser had
to engage a lawyer and fight for a reasonable compensation
by seeking reference to the court. The reference court
determined the compensation as Rs.30,420/- per acre on
10.3.2005. This means an increase of about Rs.35,000 in
compensation (plus statutory additions) for the acquired
land. But the land loser was not given this amount. The
State Government files a first appeal, then a second appeal
and then a SLP. The result is except the paltry amount
9
which he must have received when the LAO made the award,
the land loser has not received any compensation for nearly
17 years and had to fight the litigation before three
courts for a total compensation of Rs.40000/- (excluding
statutory benefits). Apart from the fact that the land
loser would have spent virtually the entire amount for
litigation, whatever amount he may ultimately receive will
not get him even one-fourth or one-fifth of the extent of
land which he lost by acquisition. Unless the process of
acquisition gives him a reasonable compensation either at
the time of or immediately after the dispossession, the
compensation will be a mirage for most land losers.
8. Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate
to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends
upon the acquired land. The land is taken purportedly in
accordance with law by resorting to acquisition
proceedings. The Collector (LAO) is supposed to offer a
fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances
relating to market value into account. To safeguard the
interests of the land loser, the Act requires the Collector
to make the award before the land owner is dispossessed.
The intention is that the land loser will immediately be
able to draw compensation and purchase some other suitable
10
land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood.
But in practice the Collectors (LAOs) seldom make
reasonable offers. They tend to err on the ‘safer’ side and
invariably assess very low compensation. Such meager awards
force the land loser to seek reference to civil court for
increase in compensation in regard to almost every award
made by the LAO. In fact, many a time, even the reference
courts are conservative in estimating the market value and
it requires further appeals by the land loser to the High
Court and Supreme Court to get just compensation for the
land. We can take judicial notice of the fact that in
several States the awards of the reference court or the
judgments of the High Court and this Court increasing the
compensation, are not complied with and the land losers are
again driven to courts to initiate time consuming execution
process (which also involves considerable expense by way of
lawyers fee) to recover what is justly due. Resultantly the
land losers seldom get a substantial portion of proper
compensation for their land in one lump sum immediately
after the acquisition. The effect may be highlighted by the
following illustration:
A farmer owns 3 acres of land in a village, which
is his sole means of livelihood. The land is
acquired for some project in the year 1990. The
true market value of the land was around
Rs.1,50,000/- per acre in 1990. If he got the
11
said price, that is, Rs.4,50,000/- with solatium,
additional amount and interest in the year 1991,
he has a reasonable opportunity of purchasing
some alternative land, so that he can eke out his
livelihood and continue to live with dignity.
But this rarely happens in practice. The final
notification is made in 1992 and the LAO makes an
award in the year 1993 offering Rs.50,000/- per
acre. So the land loser is constrained to seek a
reference to the court. The reference court takes
three to four years to decide the reference and
increases the compensation to Rs.one lakh per
acre in the year 1996. The increased amount is
deposited in 1997-1998. The land loser is
constrained to file a further appeal to the High
Court and the High Court takes another three to
four years and increases the compensation to
Rs.1.5 lakh per acre in the year 2000 and such
increase is deposited in the year 2001-02. That
is, the loser is forced to fight at least in two
courts to get the compensation commensurate with
the market value of Rs.1.5 lakhs per acre. To add
to his woes, when the reference court or the High
Court increases the compensation, the government
does not pay the increased amount immediately and
drives him to execution proceedings also. This
means that the land owner gets compensation
piecemeal, that is Rs.50,000/- per acre in 1993,
another Rs.50,000/- per acre in 1997-98, and
another Rs.50,000/- per acre in 2001-02. At every
stage he has to incur expenses for litigation. As
he does not get the full compensation in one lump
sum, he is not in a position to purchase an
alternative land. When the land is acquired, he
loses his means of livelihood, as he knows no
other type of work. The result is, he is forced
to spend the compensation received in piecemeal,
on sustenance of his family when he fights the
legal battles for increasing the compensation and
for recovering the increases granted, by levying
execution. The result is that whatever
compensation is received piecemeal, gets spent
for the sustenance of the family, and litigation
cost during the course of prolonged litigation.
At the end of the legal battle, he is hardly left
with any money to purchase alternative land and
by then the prices of land would have also
12
increased manifold, making it impossible to
purchase even a fraction of the land which he
originally possessed. Illiteracy, ignorance, and
lack of counselling add to his woes and the
piecemeal compensation is dissipated leaving him
with neither land, nor money to buy alternative
land, nor any means of livelihood. In short, he
is stripped of his land and livelihood.
9. When large areas are acquired, unless some effort is
made by all the wings of government to ensure prompt
payment of realistic compensation with appropriate
rehabilitation measures, land acquisitions lead to great
tragedy and ruination of poor families. We may, at the risk
of stating the obvious, refer to the following steps if
taken within the frame work of existing laws may provide
considerable succour to the land loser: (a) Collector/LAO
should offer compensation which is reasonable and realistic
and very near to value. (b) Whenever courts increase the
compensation, instead of mechanically filing appeals in all
cases, or delaying payments without apparent reason, an
effort should be made to pay the increases awarded by court
promptly. (c) The government and/or beneficiaries of
acquisition should encourage and resort to negotiations to
arrive at a mutually acceptable amount of compensation.
(d) Avenues of rehabilitation by way of employment,
housing, investment opportunities, identification of
13
alternative lands, may be explored and implemented. When
large tracts of lands belonging to several land owners are
acquired by development authorities for formation of
residential or commercial layouts, schemes may be
formulated which contemplate 25% to 30% of the land area
being used for roads amenities and open spaces, and utilize
the remaining area which is developed into plots, by
selling about one-third by auction to recover the
development cost, by allotting about one-third to poor or
needy at cost price, and by releasing/allotting about one-
third area to the land losers whose lands were acquired.
Some development authorities have reduced land acquisition
litigation considerably either by entering into negotiated
consent awards or formulating schemes for sharing the
developed area with the land losers. Others may emulate
them with appropriate modifications.
10. We are not unaware of the fact that in some cases, the
awards of courts is high. The main reason therefor is the
failure on the part of Collectors/LAOs/Beneficiaries of
acquisition, to conduct the cases before the reference
court properly. They either fail to cross-examine the
claimant’s witnesses or fail to lead evidence to rebut the
14
high claims. An attempt is belatedly made to set right the
matter by filing appeals.
11. It is not our intention to discourage the governments
or the beneficiaries of acquisition from filing appeals
where high compensation or unreasonable awards are made by
courts. Nor is our intention to suggest policy or interfere
with existing policy. Our endeavour is only to draw
attention to the plight of many land losers and to some
aspects of land acquisition litigation, so that urgently
needed remedial measures can be initiated for the benefit
of land losers for whom acquisition means deprivation of
the means of livelihood. Unless there is a concerted effort
by the governments/beneficiaries of acquisition/
collectors/courts to give effect to the legislative intent
of prompt disbursement of adequate compensation, the
suffering and disillusionment will continue.
Conclusion
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
there was delay in seeking reference and therefore the
reference ought to have been rejected. Such a ground was
not urged either before the reference court, or the first
15
appellate court or before the High Court or even in the
SLP. In the circumstances, we cannot countenance such a
contention.
13. Resultantly, we condone the delay, but dismiss the SLP
as having no merit. We may add that we find no specific
fault with the Advocate-on-record in this case. We have
merely taken the opportunity to advert to several general
shortcomings in filing of special leave petitions, with the
hope bringing changes for the better.
_________________J.
[R. V. Raveendran]
__________________J
[J. M. Panchal]
New Delhi;
February 9, 2009.