Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (civil) 11815-18 of 2000
PETITIONER:
KOPPATHI VENKATI & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/02/2002
BENCH:
N. Santosh Hegde & Doraiswamy Raju
JUDGMENT:
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
Leave granted.
The appellants in these appeals challenge the judgment of
the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad,
dated 23.11.1999 whereby their appeals filed against the
judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Asifabad, made in O.P.
No.53 of 1991 dated 15.2.1996 came to be rejected. It is the
case of the appellants that they are the owners of various survey
numbers which came to be acquired under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act by a Notification dated 16.3.1984. It is
stated that as per this acquisition notification, large areas of
land measuring approximately 140 acres came to be acquired
for the benefit of Singareni Collieries. The Land Acquisition
Officer had granted a compensation of Rs.26,680/- per acre as
the market value out of which after deducting one-third of the
said value towards development, fixed the net market value of
the land at Rs.17,787/- per acre. It is the case of the appellants
that one of the claimants owning Survey No.85 out of the group
of lands acquired was awarded a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- per acre
by the Reference Court which after deducting 31 per cent of the
said value towards developmental charges, awarded him
Rs.78,880/- per acre. When the said matter was taken up in
appeal before the High Court in A.S. No.1180 of 1994, the
High Court fixed the compensation at the net value of
Rs.68,000/- per acre, and that judgment was challenged by the
State of Andhra Pradesh by way of an SLP which came to be
dismissed. It was also contended that the Singareni Collieries
also filed an SLP with the permission of this Court which
permission was granted but the SLP came to be dismissed on
merit, confirming the award of Rs.68,000/- per acre.
It was thereafter contended that in this case of the
appellants, the Reference Court granted Rs.75,000/- per acre as
net value following its award in O.P. No.2/90 which, as stated
above, was confirmed by the High Court. Against the said
award of the Reference Court in the case of these appellants, the
respondents herein preferred appeal before the High Court and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
the High Court without agreeing to rely upon its own finding in
O.P. No.2/90 held that fixation of a price in some other
connected land acquisition matter cannot be treated as res
judicata, and binding upon the parties. It is further contended
that the High Court without even referring to Section 28-A of
the Land Acquisition Act, proceeded to allow the appeal of the
respondents and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for
fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in the
said judgment.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants, contended that assuming that the judgment in
O.P. No.2/90 would not amount to res judicata as to bind the
parties in the present case, certainly the same would be a piece
of evidence which ought to have been taken note of by the High
Court while interfering with the award of the Reference Court.
He contended that there is absolutely no difference between the
land involved in O.P. No.2/90. On the contrary, from the
material on record as noticed by both the Land Acquisition
Officer as well as the Reference Court, it is clear that the land
involved in present appeal is superior and was of better value
than the land involved in O.P. No.2/90, therefore, the High
Court ought not to have come to the conclusion that the land in
the present appeal is in any manner different from the land in
O.P. No.2/90. He also contended that the principles or the
objects behind enacting Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition
Act have been totally lost sight of by the High Court which in
the opinion of the learned counsel, would require the acquiring
authority to pay compensation at the same rate for all the lands
acquired under a single notification, and the High Court,
according to him, has erred in not placing reliance on this
Section.
Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for Singareni Collieries, and Mr. G. Prabhakar,
learned counsel appearing for the Land Acquisition Officer,
pointed out that the order of the High Court remanding the
matter was of 23.11.1999 with a direction to the Reference
Court to dispose of the reference case on remand within 3
months and pursuant to the said order, the Reference Court has
made a fresh award on 29.2.2000 which award is not challenged
by the appellants herein, consequently the same has become
final. They also addressed arguments on merits.
Having noticed the fact that the judgment of the High
Court has been given effect to by the Reference Court and the
fresh award has come into existence which is not under
challenge, we feel it not proper to interfere with the impugned
order at this stage. At the same time, the appellants should not
be rendered helpless in agitating their claim against the fresh
award before the High Court. Hence, we think it appropriate
that the appellants be permitted to file appeals against the award
made by the Reference Court on remand by the High Court, as
also permit them to raise all the contentions urged before us in
these appeals.
Accordingly, while disposing of these appeals, we permit
the appellants to challenge the awards made in pursuant to the
remand by the High Court as per the impugned judgment before
the appellate court, and if such appeals are filed within 30 days
from today, the appellate court will entertain the same without
going into the question of limitation and consider the appeal on
merits, and the appellants as well as the respondents shall be at
liberty to raise all the points argued in these appeals and those
which are otherwise permissible for the parties to raise in such
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
appeal which may be filed. The appeals are disposed of in the
above terms. No order as to costs.
...............................J.
(N. Santosh Hegde)
..............................J.
February 7, 2002. (Doraiswamy Raju)