Huchanagouda vs The Assistant Commissioner And Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 5976 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).18232 OF 2019 @ SLP(C) DIARY NO.27982 OF 2017)

HUCHANAGOUDA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL No(s).5977 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).18233 OF 2019 @ SLP(C) Diary No(s). 27981/2017)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J:

(1) Leave granted.

(2) The Government notified the lands in-question for

acquisition for the purpose of rehabilitating the Veerapur

villagers on account of implementation of Hirehalla project on

16.10.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award

dated 08.03.2006 fixing the value of the land at the rate of

Rs.24,500/- per acre. In reference, the Court raised the

market value to Rs.1,26,500/- per acre. In appeal, the High

Court has taken into account the market value determined in

respect of acquisition under another Notification dated

24.11.1994, pointing out that the present notification is dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH 16.10.2003 and there being a gap of about eight years and ten Date: 2019.08.05 16:59:37 IST Reason:

months and twenty two days from the earlier Notification dated

24.11.1994, the High court granted 5% escalation for the gap of 2

about nine years between 24.11.1994 and 16.10.2003 and arrived

at the market value of Rs.1,55,133/- which is rounded off to

Rs.1,56,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the claimants have

preferred these appeals seeking further enhancement.

(3) We have heard Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants and Mr. Navin R. Nath, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and also perused the

impugned judgment and the materials on record.

(4) Mr. Navin R. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent, has submitted that SLP(C)No.22784 of 2016 arising

out of the same project had been filed by another land owner.

The said special leave petition was mainly dismissed by this

Court vide Order dated 10.01.2018 mainly on the ground of delay

in filing the special leave petition.

(5) Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants-claimants, has placed reliance on the judgment of

this Court in Imrat Lal and Others v. Land Acquisition

Collector and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 133, and has submitted that

in case of land acquisition matters there is necessity to take

the judicial notice of the fact that in India villagers are by

and large poor and therefore the delay in filing the special

leave petition cannot be the reason to deny the just and fair

compensation to the claimants. It was submitted that the Court

should adopt liberal approach where there is a delay in filing

the special leave petition. This Court in para ‘11’ of Imrat

Lal (Supra) has held as under:

3

“11. We can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers in our country are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually guided by their co-villagers, who are familiar with the proceedings in the Courts or the advocates with whom they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of half baked information made available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal approach and either grant time to the party to file better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly situated persons who were affected by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court have been granted relief.”

(6) We further take note that this Court in the case of Dhiraj

Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. And Others v. State of Haryana and

Others, (2014) 14 SCC 127, has considered the issue relating to

condonation of delay in land acquisition matters and the manner

in which the equities are to be balanced. It is held therein

as hereunder:

“15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants’ interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic.

16. The principles regarding condonation of delay particularly in land acquisition matters, have been enunciated in Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, wherein it is sated in para 3 as under:

“3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 4

in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ‘merits’. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice – that being the life-purpoe for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realised that:

(1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

(3) ‘Every day’s delay must be explained’ does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why

not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

(4) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

(5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

(6) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on 5

technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”

Further, even if the consideration is made on merits after

condoning the delay, the determination of the market value will

in all event relate back to the date of preliminary

notification and as such there is no prejudice to the

acquisition authority nor added advantage to the land loser.

The aspect relating to interest can be taken care by denying it

to the land loser for the period of delay.

(7) Following the above judgment and for the further reasons

assigned above, in our view the delay of 2154 days in filing

and 252 days in refiling S.L.P.(C) Diary No.27982 of 2017 as

also the delay of 2109 days in filing and 250 days in refiling

S.L.P.(C)Diary No.27981 of 2017 cannot be a reason to deny the

consideration of the matter on merits regarding the claim of

the appellant for just and fair compensation.

(8) The High Court has granted 5% escalation for the gap of

about nine years between 24.11.1994 and 16.10.2003.

Admittedly, the acquisition of the land was for rehabilitating

the Veerapur villagers on account of implementation of

Hirehalla Project. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellants has submitted that though the acquired land on the

date of acquisition was agricultural land the very fact that it

is acquired for rehabilitation which is non-agricultural use,

the same has the potential for development for being converted

into building sites and had the potential of being put to 6

better use. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the

appellants on the judgment of this Court in General Manager,

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai

Patel and Another, (2008) 14 SCC 745. Pointing out that there

should be significant increases in the market value of the land

in para ‘14’ of Rameshbhai (supra) it was held by this Court

which reads as under :

“14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.”

(9) In the present case, though the land is stated to be an agricultural land in Veerapur Village, considering the potentiality of the land for development, the escalation is granted at the rate of 10% with cumulative effect as under :

“1994 - Rs.1,00,000/- 1995 - Rs.1,10,000/- 1996 - Rs.1,21,000/- 1997 - Rs.1,33,100/- 1998 - Rs.1,46,410/- 1999 - Rs.1,61,051/- 2000 - Rs.1,77,156/- 2001 - Rs.1,94,872/- 2002 - Rs.2,14,359/- 2003 - Rs.2,35,795/-” 7

(10) Awarding 10% increase, the appellants-claimants are

entitled to Rs.2,35,795/- per acre. Accordingly, the

compensation awarded to the appellants-claimants is enhanced to

Rs.2,35,795/- per acre. Needless to point out that for the

period of delay in filing and in refiling the special leave

petitions the appellants-claimants shall not be entitled to any

interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory amount.

(11) The impugned judgment(s) of the High Court is modified to

the extent indicated above and the appeals are partly allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) NEW DELHI, JULY 30, 2019.