Shripal vs Karnataka Neravari Nigam Ltd

2024 INSC 386 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4041 OF 2024

SHRIPAL & ANR. ...Appellant(s)

VERSUS

KARNATAKA NERAVARI NIGAM LTD. & ANR. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4042 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4043 OF 2024

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. The appellants herein, who were land losers, have

approached this Court by way of these appeals seeking

enhancement of compensation pursuant to acquisition of their Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2024.05.07 13:17:29 IST Reason:

lands by the respondents for the purpose of construction of

canals under the Hippargi Barrage project.

1

2. There is no dispute that the lands of the appellants were

irrigated lands. The land acquisition notification under Section

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 12 th April,

2007. The Special Land Acquisition Officer(S.L.A.O.) awarded

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,31,263/- per acre to the land

owners.

3. The land owners preferred a reference and the Reference

Court enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value of

the land at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the beneficiaries being respondent-

Karnaktaka Neravari Nigam Ltd. filed M.F.A. No. 100175 of 2014

before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench wherein, the

appellant-claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement

of compensation.

5. In the High Court, the cross-objectors i.e. appellants herein

contended that in another M.F.A. No. 23768 of 2013, the High

Court had awarded compensation by fixing the market value at

Rs. 3,69,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits so far as the

irrigated lands are concerned.

6. The said matter arose out of an acquisition notification of

the years 2004-2005 and the order passed by the High Court has

2 been confirmed by this Court with dismissal of Special Leave

Petition(C) No. 8107 of 2016 filed by the beneficiary.

7. Shri Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned senior counsel

representing the appellants drew the Court’s attention to an order

dated 17th April, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the

High Court of Karnataka wherein, for the very same project, the

land owners had been awarded compensation at the rate of

Rs.5,00,000/- per acre in respect of lands which are covered

under the notifications issued between 2004-2008. He, thus,

urged that the appellants are entitled to the same relief.

8. Per contra, Mr. Navin R. Nath, learned senior counsel

representing the respondent-beneficiary pointed out that the High

Court committed a glaring error in construing the affidavit filed

by the respondents in MFA No.101083 of 2016. He urged that in

the said matter, the affidavit which was filed pertained to an

acquisition of 2009, wherein the Reference Court had determined

compensation at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.

9. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and after going through the

material available on record, we find that the respondents

themselves have agreed to award the market value at the rate of

Rs. 3,69,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits for the lands

3 acquired under the notification of the years 2004-2005.

10. For the market value fixed in the years 2004-2005 at the

rate of Rs.3,69,000/- per acre, an escalation of 5 per cent per

year has already been applied.

11. For the lands acquired in the year 2009, the market value

had been fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre

and above.

12. The lands of the appellants herein were acquired in the year

2007.

13. In this background, we feel that ends of justice would be met

if the market value of the lands acquired from the appellants is

fixed at Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre by modifying the order dated 2nd

February, 2018 passed by the High Court.

14. Accordingly, we hereby direct that the appellant-claimants

shall be entitled to compensation towards the acquired lands at

the rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits,

interest and costs. However, the direction of the High Court to

deny interest for the period of delay in filing the cross-objections

is sustained.

15. This order is being passed in peculiar facts of the present

case and shall not be treated as precedent.

16. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.

4

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

.…………………………J. (B.R. GAVAI)

………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

May 07, 2024

5