Article 142 permits parity in compensation under the same acquisition notification despite abnormal delay.

The respondents issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 11 February 1999 to acquire 7 Acres 12 Guntas in Survey No. 161/2, Mudhol Village, Karnataka, for accommodating families displaced by a project.

The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 4 January 2000. On a reference under Section 18(1), the Reference Court enhanced compensation to ₹3,00,000 per acre on 27 March 2001.

The High Court further enhanced the compensation to ₹5,00,000 per acre in MFA No. 20936 of 2008 on 23 June 2011.

Subsequently, in proceedings concerning lands acquired under the same notification, compensation was fixed at ₹6,50,000 per acre. This enhancement was approved by the Supreme Court in Ravindra v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Bagalkot, (2017) 11 SCC 495.

The appellants’ review petition before the High Court was dismissed on 7 September 2015. They thereafter approached the Supreme Court seeking parity with the compensation awarded in Ravindra.

The respondents did not dispute the factual or procedural history but opposed the claim on the ground of extraordinary delay and contended that interest should be denied for the delayed periods.

Whether the appellants were entitled to enhancement of compensation to ₹6,50,000 per acre, in parity with other landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification?

Whether the appellants were entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the periods during which they had delayed pursuing their remedies?

Whether, notwithstanding the extraordinary delay, the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend the benefit of the compensation determined in Ravindra?

The Court applied Sections 4(1) and 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, governing the notification for acquisition and reference against the determination of compensation.

It relied on the principle of parity in compensation where lands are acquired under the same notification and on the binding determination in Ravindra v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Bagalkot, (2017) 11 SCC 495, which approved compensation of ₹6,50,000 per acre for the relevant acquisition.

The Court also invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, permitting it to make orders necessary to do complete justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

However, where an awardee has been guilty of substantial delay, the Court may grant the substantive enhancement while denying interest for the period attributable to that delay.

The Court acknowledged that the appellants’ delay was abnormal and that the High Court had valid reasons for dismissing the review petition.

Nevertheless, the decisive consideration was that the compensation for lands covered by the very same notification had already been fixed at ₹6,50,000 per acre and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ravindra.

Since the appellants were similarly situated agriculturists whose lands were acquired under that notification, denying them the same rate would be inconsistent with parity in compensation.

Exercising Article 142 jurisdiction, the Court therefore extended the Ravindra determination to the appellants.

At the same time, to account for their lack of diligence, the Court denied interest for the period from 28 March 2001 to the filing of the MFA in 2008 and from 24 June 2011 to the refiling of the SLPs on 27 January 2017, totalling 4,427 days.

The appellants were held entitled to compensation at ₹6,50,000 per acre, together with statutory benefits, in parity with the determination in Ravindra.

However, they were held not entitled to interest for the aggregate delayed period of 4,427 days specified by the Court.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.