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
J U D G M E N T
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