Lachchappa vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ukp, ...
- Neutral2026 INSC 815
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where there is inordinate delay in prosecuting land acquisition compensation claims—spanning multiple years between successive proceedings—the delay may be condoned by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution in cases involving agriculturists whose land was acquired, particularly where the claimants have been denied relief across multiple forums. Where compensation for acquired land has been uniformly fixed at a particular rate under the same notification for similarly situated claimants, the Supreme Court may exercise its discretion under Article 142 to extend that same rate of compensation to appellants in an earlier claim, notwithstanding procedural delays, rather than leave them in a position of material inequality. A claimant in a land acquisition reference who fails to pursue an appeal promptly is not entitled to interest on the awarded compensation for the periods of delay attributable to their own inaction in filing successive appeals and petitions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
LACHCHAPPA AND OTHERS … APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UKP, BAGALKOT AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. The delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. On 11.02.1999, the Respondents issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) proposing to acquire an extent of 7 Acres 12 Guntas in Survey No. 161/2 of Mudhol Village, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District, Karnataka. The acquisition was for the purpose of accommodating displaced families under a project. On 04.01.2000, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award, and aggrieved by the determination of compensation, the Appellants sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Act in LAC No. 1802 of 2000 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
1
Jamkhandi. On 27.03.2001, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre.
4. The Appellants filed MFA No. 20936 of 2008 before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad. On 23.06.2011, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre.
5. The grievance of the Appellants hinges on the compensation awarded for the same Notification dated 11.02.1999 in a different set of proceedings.
In MFA No. 21191 of 2010, the compensation for the lands covered by the same Notification was determined at Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre by following the enhancement vide Judgment of the High Court dated 12.12.2012. This Court in Ravindra and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Bagalkot,1 approved the compensation for the acquired lands at Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre.
6. The Appellants filed Review Petition No. 100113 of 2014 before the High Court, and through Order dated 07.09.2015, the Review was dismissed.
7. Hence, the Civil Appeals, seeking parity in compensation with Ravindra (supra), arising out of lands covered by the same Notification dated 11.02.1999.
8. The Respondents do not dispute the dates and details adverted to above. The objections of the Respondents are that the Appellants are by no measure diligent in pursuing the claim for enhancement of compensation.
Further, it is argued that for the period of delay, the Appellants are not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation. According to
1 (2017) 11 SCC 495.
2
Respondents, the delay is fit into the following two categories: (i) from 28.03.2001 (27.03.2001 being the date of the Judgment of the Reference Court when the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre) till the filing of the MFA before the High Court of Karnataka in the year 2008, i.e., 2,383 days; and (ii) from 24.06.2011 (23.06.2011 being the date of the Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the MFA No. 20936 of 2008) till the refiling of this Special Leave Petitions on 27.01.2017, i.e., 2,044 days.
9. We have perused the record and noticed that the Appellants were agriculturists, and the agricultural land was acquired through the subject Notification.
10. The delay is abnormal. The reasons recorded by the High Court for not entertaining the Review are available in the facts and circumstances of the case. But the fact of the matter is that, under the very same Notification, the compensation has been fixed at Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre, with statutory benefits. In the circumstances of this case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we extend the compensation determined by this Court in Ravindra (supra) to the Appellants as well.
Consequently, the Appellants are entitled to Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre, with statutory benefits.
11. The Appellants are not entitled to interest for the period from the date of the Reference Court's Judgment, i.e., 28.03.2001, to the date of filing the subject MFA before the High Court of Karnataka in 2008, and from the date of disposal of the subject MFA by the High Court on 24.06.2011 to the refiling of the SLPs before this Court, i.e., 27.01.2017, aggregating to 4,427 days.
3
12. Civil Appeals are allowed as indicated above.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
...……….…………………J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]
....…………………………J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
New Delhi;
August 7, 2026.
4
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