Miss Lucy
← All judgments

D. Eswara Naidu & Ors. vs The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)

Supreme Court20 November 2018Hemant Gupta · Deepak Gupta · Kurian Joseph

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

1. In land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, similarly situated persons whose lands were acquired under the same notification must not be discriminated in the award of compensation on the ground of delay in approaching the court, provided they claim the same rate of compensation as has been awarded to other claimants under that notification. 2. The grant of relief to claimants who have delayed in approaching the court but are identically situated to those who obtained relief earlier does not carry entitlement to statutory interest for the period of such delay. 3. Where the Supreme Court has in a previous decision fixed compensation at a particular rate for trees of a specified kind acquired for the same project under a notification from a particular year, claimants seeking compensation for the same category of trees under notifications from different years but for the same project should receive compensation at the rate fixed in that previous decision, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11355 OF 2018 (Arising from SLP(C) Nos.28137/2018)

D. ESWARA NAIDU & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A) ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11153-11158 OF 2018 (Arising from SLP(C) Nos.28139-28144/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11159 OF 2018 (Arising from SLP(C) Nos.28146/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11160 OF 2018 (Arising from SLP(C) Nos.28148/2018)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

C.A. @ SLP(C) Nos.28137/2017

1. Application for substitution is allowed subject

to all just exceptions after condoning the delay and

setting aside abatement in filing the substitution

application.

2. Permission to special leave petition is granted.

3. Leave granted.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

Signature Not Verified appellants submits that for the trees covered by the Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2018.11.27 11:40:13 IST very same Notification dated 27.09.1985 under Section Reason:

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the 2

claimants/similarly situated persons have been awarded

compensation @ Rs.4,000/- per lemon tree, as per the

very same acquisition of 1985.

5. We permit the appellants to go back to the High

Court and seek modification of the impugned judgment.

6. Needless to say that in case similarly situated

persons covered by the very same notification have been

granted compensation @ Rs.4,000/- per lemon tree, the

petitioners herein may not be discriminated on the

ground of delay. However, in the event of grant of

enhancement, they shall not be entitled for interest

for the period of delay.

7. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Civil Appeal(s) @ SLP(C) Nos. 28139-28144/2018, SLP (C) No. 28146/2018 and SLP© No.28148/2018

1. Leave granted.

2. The issue raised in these appeals pertains

to the claim made by the appellants for enhancement of

compensation for pomegranate trees, which stood in the

land acquired for the purpose of Somashila/Telugu Ganga

Project. The notifications in these cases have been

issued on different dates between 1990 to 1994. The

appellants have been granted compensation at the rate

of Rs.2000/- per Pomegranate Tree. We find from Civil

Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of 2016 that this Court has 3

fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per

pomegranate tree, as against Rs.2000/- fixed by the

High Court, in respect of the acquisition for the same

project, for which notification was issued in the year

1994. Having regard to the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it

would be just, reasonable and proper to fix the

compensation at the rate of Rs.3000/- per Pomegranate

Tree. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of with the

following directions :-

(i) The appellants shall be entitled to

compensation at the rate of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three

thousand) per Pomegranate Tree along with all statutory

benefits.

(ii) However, they shall not be entitled to

statutory interest for the period of delay in

approaching this Court or the High Court.

(iii) The compensation to the claimants shall be

made within three months from today.

..................,J.

(KURIAN JOSEPH)

..................,J.

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

..................,J.

(HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 20, 2018 4

ITEM NO.21+27 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28137/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-09-2017 in COSR No. 46558/2004 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra Pradesh)

D. ESWARA NAIDU & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) Respondent(s)

(IA-137661/2018-APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA-137664/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLICATION IA-137667/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE SLPs IA-137668/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH

SLP(C) No. 28139-28144/2018 (XII-A) (IA 145110/2018 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

SLP(C) No. 28146/2018 (XII-A)

SLP(C) No. 28148/2018 (XII-A) (IA 146418/2018 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

DIARY NO.42690/2018 (I.A. NO.164975/2018-condonation of Delay in filing) (IA No. 131336/2018 - VACATING STAY)

Date : 20-11-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv.

Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv.

Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR 5

For Respondent(s) Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.

Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

SLP (C)No(s). 28137/2018 Application for substitution is allowed subject to all just exceptions after condoning the delay and setting aside abatement in filing the substitution application.

Permission to special leave petition is granted. Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

SLP(C) Nos.28139-28144, 28146 & 28148/2018 Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed judgment.

In view of the above, pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

DIARY NO.42690/2018 List the matter on 27th November, 2018 to enable the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to get instructions.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed judgment is placed on the file.)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free