Land Acq. Officer & Asstt.Commnr. & Anr vs Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur & Ors

2. We see no reason to adopt the course suggested by Mr. Hegde. The facts of the cases before us are quite simple and it can be easily ascertained which of these cases, if any, are hit by the decision in Gurpreet Singh. Besides, all the cases are fairly old. An order of remand would simply start a fresh round of appeals and further appeals, and would keep the land-holders/claimants embroiled in litigation for an extended period. If we can, we would not like the landowners/claimants to suffer any longer. If any landowner/claimant has a lawful claim, he must get it; otherwise, the matter must end here and now.

3. On the basis of the respective facts, the appeals in this group can be divided into four sub-groups. And now we propose to deal with each sub-group separately.

4. Before proceeding further, it may be stated that some cases belonging to different sub-groups enumerated herein below were earlier disposed of in piecemeal manner by order passed on March 25, 2010. Since all the cases in the different sub-groups are now being dealt within a consolidated manner, we recall the earlier order passed on March 25, 2010.

5. There are sixteen cases in this sub-group with identical facts.

9. The facts of the case, relevant for the present are very simple and brief and may be stated thus. The possession of the land coming under acquisition was taken over by the State on August 14, 1989 even before the issuance of the preliminary notification that came on January 3, 1992. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on October 13, 1993 fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. On reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the civil court, by judgment and order dated November 27, 1998 enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per acre. It also awarded solatium @ 30%, additional market value @ 12% from the date of dispossession till the date of the award and interest @ 9% for the first year and 15% from the second year onwards till the date of realisation. Both the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the landowners/claimants filed their respective appeals against the order of the civil court. The appeal preferred by the 5 Special Land Acquisition Officer was dismissed but the appeals of the landowners/claimants (MFAs in the High Court of Karnataka) came to be admitted. While the landowners appeals were pending before the Karnataka High Court, a Constitution Bench of this Court pronounced the judgment in Sunder which settled the issue regarding the liability of payment of interest on the amount of solatium. Later on, the appeals filed by the landowners were allowed by the Karnataka High Court by judgment and order dated March 31, 2003. The High Court further enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs.60,000/- per acre fixed by the civil court to Rs.78,000/- per acre and in the operative portion (paragraph 14 of the judgment) directed as follows:-

28. The facts of the cases in this sub-group are as brief and simple as in the earlier sub-groups. In the Collector's award made on August 20, 1997, the market value of the acquired lands was fixed @ Rs.21,500/- per acre (Kharab land @ Rs.400/acre). Against the award of the Collector, 20 references came to be made under section 18 of the Act at the instance of the aggrieved landowners/claimants. All the 20 reference cases were decided by a common judgment and order dated November 30, 1998 passed by Civil Judge and Additional CJM, Koppal, in LAC No.44 of 1998 and analogous cases. The civil court enhanced the market value of the subject lands from Rs.21,500/- per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre. It also held the claimants entitled to solatium at 30% of the market value along with the additional market value at 12% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land on January 12, 1994 to the date of the award on August 20, 1997. It further held the claimants entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land on January 12, 1994 for the first year and after that from January 12, 1995 @ 15% till the date of full and final payment of the compensation. What is relevant for the present, however, is that the civil court expressly rejected the landowners' claim for interest on solatium observing as follows:

19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in these matters. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed, both on grounds of delay and on merits with the direction to the petitioner to pay to the respective respondents/land owners the balance amounts of interest on solatium for the period from 2002 to 11.9.2005.

21. In view of the order passed in SLP......(CC) Nos.4641 of 2005 etc. etc., these Special Leave Petitions are also dismissed both on the grounds of delay and on merits. The observations and directions of the High Court in regard to any differences in calculation remain undisturbed.

22. SLP (C) No. 9504/2005 is within time.

24. In view of the orders passed in the cases in the preceding sub-groups, all these Special Leave Petitions are to be dismissed subject to the observation that in case of any grievance in regard to calculations, it will be open to the petitioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer to raise his objections, if otherwise permissible in law.

25. It may also be added that accrual of interest will cease on the date the full amount of solatium is paid along with the interest accrued on it.

26. Leave granted.

29. Apparently no one took the decision of the civil court any further and the matter was allowed to rest at that stage.

35. Thus, when looked at from any angle, the High Court decision coming under appeal is untenable. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere in the matter and set aside the judgment of the division bench of the Karnataka High Court coming under appeal.

36. The appeals in this sub-group are allowed but with no order as to costs.

...................................J. (AFTAB ALAM) ...................................J. (SWATANTER KUMAR) New Delhi, July 7, 2010.