//
you're reading...
legal issues

Land Acquisition -Sec. 18 of L.A.Act – enhancement of compensation basing earlier judgement which is a continuous chunk of acquired land and which was situated in same geographical possession and adopted the method of 10% per year in market value – Apex court held that nothing found wrong and confirmed the order of High court = Defence Research & Development Organization ….Appellant VERSUS Anjanappa & Anr. ….Respondents= 2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41274

Land Acquisition -Sec. 18 of L.A.Act – enhancement of compensation basing earlier judgement which is a continuous chunk of acquired land and which was situated in same geographical possession and adopted the method of 10% per year in market value – Apex court held that nothing found wrong and confirmed the order of High court =

 The High  Court

      further enhanced the market value of land at the rate of Rs. 7,70,000/-

       in respect of land acquired under Notifications  dated  4.3.1993  and

      13.5.1993 and enhanced the market value of the land covered under  the

      Notification dated 2.6.1995  to Rs.8,40,000/-.

            Hence, these appeals and special leave petitions.

 

 

      3.    The High Court had adopted the method of 10  per  cent  increase

      every year in the market value of the land and used  the  exemplar  to

      conclude that the appellant cannot be permitted to acquire the land of

      the respondents at the price lesser than the  market  value  of  their

      land.  The Court placed reliance  on  the  earlier  judgments  of  the

      Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka and held that  the  land

      was comparable to the lands wherein the  award  dated  13.11.2002  had

      been delivered in LAC No. 263 of 1996.  The land  in  question  had  a

      potential value on the date of preliminary Notification as was evident

      from the oral evidence adduced before the Reference Court.  There  was

      no dispute that the land which was subject matter of LAC 263  of  1996

      and the lands in question were in  contiguous  and  same  geographical

      situation.  After reaching the conclusion by the court, the award  was

      given as per the market value as referred to hereinabove.

      4.    The High Court relied upon the judgment in earlier case  in  LAC

      No. 263 of 1996 and reached the aforesaid conclusion. Considering  the

      geographical  situation  of  the  land,  it  cannot   be   held   that

      compensation awarded is not justified.

 

 

            We do not see any cogent reason to interfere with  the  impugned

      judgment and order, the appeals and special leave petitions lack merit

      and are accordingly dismissed.

 

2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41274

B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7269 OF 2013

 
Defence Research & Development Organization ….Appellant
VERSUS
Anjanappa & Anr. ….Respondents
WITH
SLP (C) NO (s). 1046-1059 of 2009
SLP(C) NO(s). 17875-17881 of 2009
SLP(C) NO(s). 29763-29765 of 2010
SLP(C) NO(s). 31805-31806 of 2010
SLP(C) NO(s). 35767-35778 of 2010
SLP(C) NO(s). 14378-14379 of 2013
SLP(C) NO(s). 767-768 of 2011
SLP(C) NO(s). 23294-23337 of 2012
SLP (C) NO(s). 22532 of 2010
SLP(C) NO(s). 22533-22534 of 2010
SLP(C) NO(s). 22535-22536 of 2010
SLP(C) NO(s). 22538-22539 of 2010
SLP(C) NO(s). 25647-25648 of 2010
SLP(C) NO(s). 25649-25652 of 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1425 of 2013
O R D E R
1. All these appeals and Special Leave Petitions have been
preferred against various impugned judgments and orders passed by the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in various appeals including M.A.
No. 2588 of 2004 by which the High Court has enhanced the amount of
compensation.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals and
special leave petitions mostly disposed of by a common judgment
impugned before us had been that:
A. A huge chunk of land stood notified under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide
Notifications dated 4.3.1993, 13.5.1993 and 2.6.1995 for the use of
Defence Research and Development Organisation and the possession was
taken after completing all the requirements under the Act. The
persons interested therein filed their claims under Section 5 of the
Act and led evidence, on the basis of which the Special Land
Acquisition Officer (hereinafter called as the `SLAO’) had assessed
the market value of the land as Rs. 60,000/- per acre.
B. Aggrieved, the respondents approached the Reference Court by
filing applications under Section 18 of the Act and the Reference
Court vide award dated 30.11.2002 assessed the market value at the
rate of Rs. 3,15,000/- per acre and Rs.3,45000/- per acre with respect
to Notifications dated 4.3.1993, 13.5.1993 and 2.6.1995 respectively.
C. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed appeals under Section 54 of
the Act for reducing the amount of compensation before the High Court.
Respondents preferred cross-objections which have been allowed and
the appeals of the Union of India have been dismissed. The High Court
further enhanced the market value of land at the rate of Rs. 7,70,000/-
in respect of land acquired under Notifications dated 4.3.1993 and
13.5.1993 and enhanced the market value of the land covered under the
Notification dated 2.6.1995 to Rs.8,40,000/-.
Hence, these appeals and special leave petitions.
3. The High Court had adopted the method of 10 per cent increase
every year in the market value of the land and used the exemplar to
conclude that the appellant cannot be permitted to acquire the land of
the respondents at the price lesser than the market value of their
land. The Court placed reliance on the earlier judgments of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka and held that the land
was comparable to the lands wherein the award dated 13.11.2002 had
been delivered in LAC No. 263 of 1996. The land in question had a
potential value on the date of preliminary Notification as was evident
from the oral evidence adduced before the Reference Court. There was
no dispute that the land which was subject matter of LAC 263 of 1996
and the lands in question were in contiguous and same geographical
situation. After reaching the conclusion by the court, the award was
given as per the market value as referred to hereinabove.
4. The High Court relied upon the judgment in earlier case in LAC
No. 263 of 1996 and reached the aforesaid conclusion. Considering the
geographical situation of the land, it cannot be held that
compensation awarded is not justified.
We do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order, the appeals and special leave petitions lack merit
and are accordingly dismissed.

 
….……………………………….J.
(Dr. B.S.
CHAUHAN)

 
…………………………………………J.
(J.
CHELAMESWAR)
NEW DELHI;
February 26, 2014.

 

 

 
———————–
4

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,852,927 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,868 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com