Pattipati Venkateswarlu Naidu vs The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.)
- Neutral2018 INSC 902
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. In proceedings for enhancement of compensation under land acquisition law, where an unexplained delay has occurred in approaching the court, that delay may be condoned if the claimant is denied statutory benefits for the period of delay; this ensures that the claimant suffers a consequence for the delay while allowing the substantive claim to be considered on merits. 2. Where the Supreme Court has previously fixed compensation for acquired property at a particular rate in a case involving the same project and similar circumstances, that rate constitutes the appropriate measure of compensation for other claimants whose acquisitions relate to the same project, even if their acquisitions were notified at different dates. 3. Statutory benefits accrued during the period of delay in approaching the court are properly denied to a claimant as a consequence of that delay, notwithstanding that the claimant is granted the substantive relief sought.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10044 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 8343 OF 2018]
PATTIPATI VENKATESWARLY NAIDU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10036 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 315 OF 2018]
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10039 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 4590 OF 2018]
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10042 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 6016 OF 2018]
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10047 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 6017 OF 2018]
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10041 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 6013 OF 2018]
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10040 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 6012 OF 2018]
WITH Signature Not Verified CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10038 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 4593 OF 2018] Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2018.10.06 12:37:28 IST Reason:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10037 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 4588 OF 2018] 2
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10045 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 10827 OF 2018]
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
SLP (C) No. 8343 OF 2018
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court, as per the impugned order,
declined to consider the claim made by the
appellant(s) for enhancement of compensation on the
ground of unexplained delay in approaching the High
Court. In cases where the claim is made for
enhancement, this Court has taken a consistent view
that in case the claimants are denied the statutory
benefits for the period covered by delay, a lenient
view should be taken while condoning the delay.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, we condone the delay on the part of the
appellant(s) in approaching the High Court on the
condition that for the period of delay, they shall
not be entitled to any statutory benefits in case any
enhancement is granted by the High Court on merits.
4. Since we are bereft of other particulars on
merits, we remit the matter to the High Court for
consideration of the claims made by the appellant(s)
on merits. The parties will appear before the High 3
Court on 01.11.2018. We request the High Court to
consider the matter expeditiously since the claim
pertains to the acquisition in the year 1990.
In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
is/are disposed of.
SLP (C) No. 315 OF 2018, SLP (C) No. 4590 OF 2018,
SLP (C) No. 6016 OF 2018, SLP (C) No. 6017 OF 2018,
SLP (C) No. 6013 OF 2018, SLP (C) No. 6012 OF 2018,
SLP (C) No. 4593 OF 2018, SLP (C) No. 4588 OF 2018
and SLP (C) No. 10827 OF 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 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 4
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 for
statutory benefits for the period of delay in
approaching this Court or the High Court.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ]
New Delhi;
September 27, 2018.
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