THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL versus SUBHASHCHANDRA & ORS.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 661, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 661 : 2024 INSC 208
The Executive Engineer, KNNL 
v. 
Subhashchandra & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4053 of 2024)
12 March 2024
[Surya Kant* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Huge chunk of land measuring 13000 acres was acquired by 
the State of Karnataka for the appellant-Corporation for different 
projects. High Court while passing the impugned orders enhancing 
the compensation for the acquired land, relied upon its own 
decisions which judgments did not find favour with this Court 
in earlier litigation as regards the same chunk of land and were 
remanded to High Court for reconsideration. 
Headnotes
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Award of compensation – Big 
chunk of land acquired for  different projects at different points 
in time – Enhancement in compensation granted by the High 
Court varied from project to project – Supreme Court found 
that the High Court did not analyze each case independently, 
matters remanded to High Court – High Court while passing 
the impugned orders enhancing the compensation for the 
acquired land, relied upon said decisions which were set 
aside and were remanded to High Court for reconsideration 
– Plea of the appellant-Corporation that after the remand, the 
matter was heard in part by the High Court – Respondents-
land owners contended that there were numerous cases in 
which similarly placed land owners have already been paid 
compensation at enhanced rate granted by the High Court 
and those
judgments of the High Court attained finality and 
are not subject matter of these appeals:
Held: It is not in dispute that a batch of cases was remanded by 
this Court for reconsideration by the High Court – It is also an 
admitted fact that those matters pertained to the same broader 
acquisition, though they possibly pertain to different projects – In a 
peculiar situation where some of the judgments of the High Court 
attained finality as the compensation amount, as enhanced, stands 
paid whereas the others are still subject matter of adjudication,
662
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
these cases also remanded to the High Court so that a holistic 
view pertaining to the subject acquisition, at least project wise, can 
be taken by the High Court – High Court to make an endeavour 
to infuse uniformity in the matter of award of compensation, to the 
extent possible, in accordance with law. [Para 14]
List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
List of Keywords
Land Acquisition; Drinking water and irrigation projects/schemes; 
Award of compensation; Compensation enhanced.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4053 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2018 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Kalaburagi in MSA No.200214 of 2017
With
Civil Appeal Nos.4076, 4070, 4064, 4056, 4068, 4054, 4055, 4057, 
4058, 4059, 4060, 4061, 4062, 4063, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4069, 4071, 
4072, 4073, 4074, 4075, 4077, 4078, 4079, 4080, 4081, 4082, 4083, 
4084, 4085, 4086, 4087, 4088 And 4089-4090 Of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv., Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Abhimanyu Verma, 
Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Disha Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Mrs. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., Suraj Kaushik, 
Agam Sharma, Nanda Kumar,  Dharm Singh, M/s. Nuli & Nuli, 
Sharanagouda Patil, Harshvardhan Malipatil, Jyotish Pandey, Ms. 
Supreeta Sharanagouda, S. J. Amith, Mrs. S. Anuradha Bhat, Harisha 
S.R., Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
1.	
Permission to file special leave petition is granted in Diary 
No.12213/2023.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
663
The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.
2.	
Delay condoned.
3.	
Leave granted.
4.	
These civil appeals impugn the judgements dated 28.02.2017, 
28.11.2017, 15.02.2018, 20.02.2018, 21.02.2018, 02.03.2018, 
22.03.2018, 06.04.2018, 13.04.2018, 26.04.2018, 07.12.2018, 
12.12.2018, 14.01.2020, 24.01.2020 and 03.03.2021, passed by the 
High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench, whereby compensation 
for the acquired land was enhanced. The appellant-Karnataka 
Neeravari Nigam Limited (in short, “Corporation”) claims to be the 
beneficiary of the subject-acquisition.
5.	
The Corporation has been entrusted with the assignment to plan, 
execute and operate drinking water and irrigation projects and 
schemes in the State of Karnataka. About 13000 acres of land was 
acquired by the State of Karnataka for the appellant-Corporation for 
various projects like (1) Bennethora Project (2) Gandori Nala Project 
(3) Lower Mullamari Project and (4) Amarja Project. Certain civil 
appeals also refer to a fifth project, namely, the Upper Tunga Project. 
This huge chunk of land measuring 13000 acres also included the 
parcels of lands owned by the respondent-land owners of different 
villages. The acquisition was carried under the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 (in short, “Act”). The present civil appeals pertain to the 
Bennethora Project, Lower Mullamari Project and Amarja Project 
situated in Kalaburagi, Karnataka. 
6.	
The acquisition proceedings in these
appeals, as per the project-wise 
classification, progressed as follows-
(i)	
Bennethora Project
a)	
Civil Appeal Nos.4053, 4054, 4055, 4956, 4061, 4064, 
4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 
4074, 4075, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4079, 4080, 4081, 4082, 
4083, 4085, 4086, 4087 of 2024 pertain to this project. In 
this batch of civil appeals coming under the Bennethora 
Project, land measuring a consolidated total of 131 acres 
and 451 guntas (Approx. 142 acres) was acquired 
through different notifications issued under Section 4 of 
the Act followed by declarations under Section 6 of the Act. 
The Section 4 notifications and the Section 6 declarations 
were issued on the following dates-
664
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Date of Section 4 
Notification
Date of Section 6 
Notification
18.02.1982
10.05.1984
17.03.1983
23.02.1984
05.04.1990
22.11.1990
05.07.1990
09.05.1991
23.08.1990
04.04.1991
07.02.1991
28.11.1991
16.05.1991
26.03.1992
13.06.1991
 20.12.1991
19.06.1991
17.12.1992
11.07.1991
27.08.1997
06.08.1992
13.01.1994
b)	
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (in short, “SLAO”) 
passed the awards for the acquired lands on different 
dates, whereby compensations were granted at the 
following rates- 
Date of SLAO award
Compensation granted by 
SLAO (Rupees/acre)
23.01.1985
3,167
28.02.1985
3,500
08.01.1991
5,400
20.05.1991
6,000 for wet lands
15.06.1992
9,800
30.01.1993
28,000 for dry lands &  
42,000 for wet lands
03.02.1993
15,000
22.11.1993
15,000
27.11.1993
15,000
24.12.1993
15,000
31.05.1994
9,000
c)	
The rates of compensation awarded by the SLAO were 
enhanced by the Reference Court, keeping in view the year 
when the acquisition process commenced. The enhanced 
compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court 
was further enhanced, upon appeal, by the District Court.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
665
The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.
d)	
The dissatisfied landowners further approached the High 
Court for a higher compensation, which was subsequently 
granted vide the impugned judgements. The original rates 
of compensation awarded by the SLAO, the enhanced 
compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court, 
the compensation amounts as further enhanced by the 
District Court and impugned compensation amounts 
granted by the High Court, vide the impugned judgements, 
can be understood as follows- 
Amount 
granted 
by SLAO 
(Rupees/
acre)
Amount 
granted by 
Reference 
Court 
(Rupees/
acre)
Amount 
granted 
by District 
Court 
(Rupees/ 
acre)
Amount 
granted 
by the 
High Court 
(Rupees/
acre)
3,167
11,000
19,000
1,09,034 
3,500
11,000
26,100 
83,500 
5,400
25,500
50,500
1,52,059
15,000
28,500
74,000 
1,64,223
15,000
32,000
74,000
1,64,223 
9,000
32,000
67,000 
1,76,388
15,000
32,000
81,400 
1,76,388
6,000
36,000
Rs.90,200
2,28,088 for 
wet lands
28,000 for 
dry lands & 
42,000 for 
wet lands
42,000 
for limited 
extent of 
land instead 
of 28,000
55,888 for 
dry lands 
83,832 for 
wet lands
 1,52,059 
for dry lands 
2,28,088 for 
wet lands
9,800
42,000
75,750
1,64,223 for 
dry lands 
2,46,334 for 
wet lands
(ii)	 Amarja Project
a)	
Civil Appeal Nos.4057, 4058, 4059, 4060 & 4062, 4084 of 
2024 pertain to this Project. In the batch of civil appeals 
coming under the Amarja Project, land measuring a
666
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
consolidated total of 15 acres 83 guntas (Approx. 17 
acres) was acquired through a notification issued under 
Section 4 of the Act followed by a declaration under Section 
6 of the Act. The Section 4 notification and the Section 6 
declaration were issued on the following dates-
Date of Section 4 
Notification
Date of Section 6 
Notification
07.04.1988
06.07.1989
b)	
Thereafter, the SLAO passed the award for the acquired 
lands whereby compensations was granted at the following 
rate- 
Date of SLAO award
Compensation granted by 
SLAO (Rupees/acre)
06.03.1990
7,000
c)	
The rate of compensation awarded by the SLAO was 
enhanced by the Reference Court, keeping in view 
the year when the acquisition process commenced. 
The enhanced compensation amount granted by the 
Reference Court was further enhanced, upon appeal, 
by the District Court. 
d)	
The dissatisfied landowners further approached the High 
Court for a higher compensation, which was subsequently 
granted vide the impugned judgements. The original rate 
of compensation awarded by the SLAO, the enhanced 
compensation amount granted by the Reference Court, the 
compensation amount as further enhanced by the District 
Court and impugned compensation amount granted by 
the High Court, vide the impugned judgements, can be 
understood as follows- 
Amount 
granted 
by SLAO 
(Rupees/
acre)
Amount 
granted by 
Reference 
Court 
(Rupees/
acre)
Amount 
granted 
by District
Court 
(Rupees/
acre)
Amount 
granted 
by the 
High Court 
(Rupees/ 
acre)
7,000
30,000
79,200
1,78,429
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
667
The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.
(iii)	 Lower Mullamari Project
a)	
Civil Appeal Nos. 4063, 4088, 4089 of 2024 pertain to this 
Project. In the batch of civil appeals coming under the Lower 
Mullamari Project, land measuring a consolidated total of 
19 acres 59 guntas (Approx. 20 acres) was acquired 
through notifications under Section 4 of the Act followed 
by declarations under Section 6 of the Act, which were 
issued on different dates. The Section 4 notifications and 
the Section 6 declarations were issued on the following 
dates-
Date of Section 4 
Notification
Date of Section 6 
Notification
30.05.1991
11.05.1992 / 03.09.1992
14.01.1993
07.04.1994
04.03.1993
07.04.1994
b)	
Thereafter, the SLAO passed the awards for the acquired 
lands on different dates, whereby compensations were 
granted at the following rates- 
Date of SLAO award
Compensation granted by 
SLAO (Rupees/acre)
04.05.1983
8,000 for dry lands & 10,000 
for wet lands
18.11.1995
10,000 for dry lands & 15,000 
for wet lands
01.01.1996
8,000
c)	
The rates of compensation awarded by the SLAO were 
enhanced by the Reference Court, keeping in view the year 
when the acquisition process commenced. The enhanced 
compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court 
was further enhanced, upon appeal, by the District Court. 
d)	
The dissatisfied landowners further approached the High 
Court for a higher compensation, which was subsequently 
granted vide the impugned
judgements. The original rates 
of compensation awarded by the SLAO, the enhanced 
compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court,
668
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the compensation amounts as further enhanced by the 
District Court and impugned compensation amounts 
granted by the High Court, vide the impugned judgements, 
can be understood as follows- 
Amount 
granted 
by SLAO 
(Rupees/
acre)
Amount 
granted by 
Reference 
Court 
(Rupees/
acre)
Amount 
granted 
by District 
Court 
(Rupees/
acre)
Amount 
granted 
by the 
High Court 
(Rupees/
acre)
8,000 for 
dry lands & 
10,000 for 
wet lands
70,000
-
1,15,086
10,000 for 
dry lands & 
15,000 for 
wet lands
50,000 for 
dry lands 
75,000 for 
wet lands
-
1,24,992 for 
dry lands 
1,86,440 for 
wet lands
8,000
33,000
74,750/75,543
1,33,500
7.	
It may thus be seen that the enhancement in the compensation 
granted by the High Court varies from project to project and while 
the minimum amount is Rs.83,500/- per acre, the maximum amount 
is seen to have gone up to Rs.1,78,429/- per acre for dry lands and 
Rs. 2,46,334/- for wet lands.
8.	
Having regard to the big chunk of land acquired for different projects 
referred to above, at different points in time, the enhancement 
made by the High Court in a few cases, where the compensation of 
Rs.1,20,814/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.1,81,221/- per acre for 
wet lands was awarded, came to be challenged before this Court 
in a batch of appeals, including C.A. No.2591/2022 (The Executive 
Engineer, KNNL Vs. Annarao @ Anveerappa & Anr.), in which this 
Court, vide Judgment dated 10.05.2022, having
found that the 
High Court has not analyzed each case independently, much less 
notification wise, concerning particular village or area and that the 
parameters delineated in various decisions of this Court were not 
adverted to, held as follows:
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
669
The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.
“In the impugned judgment(s) and order (s), the High court 
has made no effort to analyze the concerned case(s) either 
notification-wise or for that matter, village-wise, including 
the other parameters required to be observed for arriving 
at a just compensation amount. 
Further, in most of the appeals, the appellant (Karnataka 
Neeravari Nigam Limited} was not made party in the appeal 
proceeding before the High Court. 
It is also the grievance of the appellant that most of 
the cases, entertained at the instance of land owners, 
were grossly delayed and yet they have been granted 
enhancement, and in some cases along with interest. 
The fact remains that the High Court in the impugned 
judgment(s) and order(s) has not analyzed each case 
independently much less notification-wise concerning 
particular village or area and keeping in mind the 
parameters delineated in the reported decision, adverted 
to earlier. 
In our opinion, it is appropriate that the parties are relegated 
before the High Court for reconsideration of the entire 
matter afresh and in accordance with law. 
Learned counsel appearing for the land owners were at 
pains to point out that some matters pertaining to some 
of the notifications, referred to in the present appeal 
proceedings, have reached upto this Court and decided 
in favour of the land owners, including in some cases 
the appellants have acted upon the decision by
paying 
compensation amount. Even the effect of such orders 
passed by this Court can be examined by the High Court 
on its own merits and in accordance with law. 
Accordingly, we keep all contentions available to both 
sides open, to be considered by the High Court on its 
own merits and in accordance with law. 
The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) are set aside and 
the concerned appeals/petitions are remanded to the High 
Court for reconsideration in the above terms.
670
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.07.2022, 
when the High Court may assign suitable date for hearing 
of the concerned batch of cases which, as aforesaid, must 
proceed notification-wise pertaining to concerned village 
as a separate group. 
Needless to observe that some of the notifications pertain 
to the year 1983, therefore, it would be appropriate that 
the High Court disposes of the appeal(s) expeditiously. 
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.”
9.	
The High Court judgments, which were set aside and the cases 
remanded back for fresh consideration, also included the judgments 
rendered by the High Court in MSA No.200020/2018 (LAC) titled 
Rajshekhar s/o Sangappa deceased by Lrs. vs. The Special Land 
Acquisition Officer, MSA No.200014/2018 (LAC) titled Kalappa 
S/o Paudapppa v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and MSA 
No.200147/2017 (LAC) titled Motibee W/o Mashak Patel v. The Spl. 
Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. decided on 19.02.2018, 21.02.2018 and 
09.01.2018 respectively, awarding compensation of Rs.1,64,223/acre, 
Rs.1,64,223/acre and Rs.1,52,059/acre respectively for the dry lands. 
Consequently, Rajshekhar’s case (supra) has also been remanded to 
the High Court for fresh adjudication. The abovementioned judgements 
of the High Court had in turn placed reliance on MSA No. 200055/2016 
(LAC) titled Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun vs. The Special Land Acquisition 
Officer & Anr, decided
by the High Court on 13.03.2017, which has 
also been remanded to the High Court vide this Court’s order dated 
10.05.2022 in Annarao @ Anveerappa case (supra).
10.	 We find that in the present batch of appeals, the brief impugned 
order passed by the High Court in CA No.4053/2024, has solely 
relied upon its own decision in Rajshekhar’s case (supra). In some 
of the other appeals, namely CA Nos. 4954, 4055, 4056, 4064, 4065, 
4066, 4067, 4068, 4079, 4080, 4081, 4082, 4083, 4087 and 4088 
of 2024, the High Court has relied upon its decision in Malkajappa 
@ Mallikarjun (supra), Kalappa (supra) (which placed reliance on 
Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun (supra)) and Motibee (supra)(which placed 
reliance on Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun (supra)). These judgments 
did not find favour with this Court in Annarao @ Anveerappa case 
(supra), whereby the matters have been remanded to the High Court 
for reconsideration.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
671
The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.
11.	 Learned senior counsel for the appellant-Corporation, submits that 
after the remand, the matter has been heard in part by the High Court. 
12.	 On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents-land 
owners submits that there are numerous cases in which similarly 
placed land owners have already been paid compensation at 
enhanced rate granted by the High Court. Those judgments of the 
High Court have attained finality and are not subject matter of these 
appeals.
13.	 Learned senior counsel for the appellant(s), however, counters this 
submission, as according to him, those matters pertain to different 
villages and the respondents cannot claim parity with those cases. 
14.	 We have considered the rival submissions made by learned senior 
counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that a batch of cases has 
been remanded by this Court for reconsideration by the High Court, 
as seen above. It is also an admitted fact that those matters pertain 
to the same broader acquisition, though they possibly pertain to 
different projects. In a peculiar situation where some of the judgments 
of the High Court attained finality as the compensation amount, as 
enhanced, stands paid whereas the others are still subject matter 
of adjudication, we deem it appropriate to remand these cases also 
to the High Court so that a holistic view pertaining to the subject 
acquisition, at least project
wise, can be taken by the High Court. 
The High Court will make an endeavour to infuse uniformity in the 
matter of award of compensation, to the extent it is possible, in 
accordance with law. 
15.	 It goes without saying that the High Court, while undertaking this 
exercise, will not reduce the compensation to a rate which has 
already been paid to some of the land owners and which has attained 
finality. The rest of the contentions from both sides are kept open to 
be gone into by the High Court.
16.	 It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits 
of the case.
17.	 The parties are directed to appear before the High Court of Karnataka 
at Kalaburagi Bench on 18.03.2024. We request the High Court to 
take up these matters also, along with the Rajshekhar’s case (supra) 
and other cases, which are already part heard before the High Court. 
Since the acquisition is more than three decades old, we request

672
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the High Court to decide the matters expeditiously and preferably 
within three months from the date of this judgement.
18.	 The instant civil appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Result of the case: 
Appeals disposed of.