advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, February 28, 2014

Land Acquisition -Sec. 18 of L.A.Act - enhancement of compensation basing earlier judgement which is a continuous chunk of acquired land and which was situated in same geographical possession and adopted the method of 10% per year in market value - Apex court held that nothing found wrong and confirmed the order of High court = Defence Research & Development Organization ….Appellant VERSUS Anjanappa & Anr. ….Respondents= 2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41274

   Land Acquisition -Sec. 18 of L.A.Act - enhancement of compensation basing earlier judgement which is a continuous chunk of acquired land and which was situated in same geographical possession and adopted the method of 10% per year in market value - Apex court held that nothing found wrong and confirmed the order of High court =
 The High  Court
      further enhanced the market value of land at the rate of Rs. 7,70,000/-
       in respect of land acquired under Notifications  dated  4.3.1993  and
      13.5.1993 and enhanced the market value of the land covered under  the
      Notification dated 2.6.1995  to Rs.8,40,000/-.
            Hence, these appeals and special leave petitions.


      3.    The High Court had adopted the method of 10  per  cent  increase
      every year in the market value of the land and used  the  exemplar  to
      conclude that the appellant cannot be permitted to acquire the land of
      the respondents at the price lesser than the  market  value  of  their
      land.  The Court placed reliance  on  the  earlier  judgments  of  the
      Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka and held that  the  land
      was comparable to the lands wherein the  award  dated  13.11.2002  had
      been delivered in LAC No. 263 of 1996.  The land  in  question  had  a
      potential value on the date of preliminary Notification as was evident
      from the oral evidence adduced before the Reference Court.  There  was
      no dispute that the land which was subject matter of LAC 263  of  1996
      and the lands in question were in  contiguous  and  same  geographical
      situation.  After reaching the conclusion by the court, the award  was
      given as per the market value as referred to hereinabove.
      4.    The High Court relied upon the judgment in earlier case  in  LAC
      No. 263 of 1996 and reached the aforesaid conclusion. Considering  the
      geographical  situation  of  the  land,  it  cannot   be   held   that
      compensation awarded is not justified.


            We do not see any cogent reason to interfere with  the  impugned
      judgment and order, the appeals and special leave petitions lack merit
      and are accordingly dismissed.

2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41274
B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR
                                                              REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7269 OF 2013




      Defence Research & Development Organization         ….Appellant


                                   VERSUS
      Anjanappa & Anr.                                        ….Respondents


                                    WITH


                      SLP (C) NO (s). 1046-1059 of 2009
                      SLP(C) NO(s).  17875-17881 of 2009
                      SLP(C) NO(s).  29763-29765 of 2010
                     SLP(C) NO(s).  31805-31806 of 2010
                      SLP(C) NO(s). 35767-35778 of 2010
                      SLP(C) NO(s). 14378-14379 of 2013
                       SLP(C) NO(s).  767-768 of 2011
                      SLP(C) NO(s). 23294-23337 of 2012
                        SLP (C) NO(s). 22532 of 2010
                      SLP(C) NO(s). 22533-22534 of 2010
                      SLP(C) NO(s). 22535-22536 of 2010
                      SLP(C) NO(s). 22538-22539 of 2010
                      SLP(C) NO(s). 25647-25648 of 2010
                      SLP(C) NO(s). 25649-25652 of 2010
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1425 of 2013


                                  O R D E R


      1.     All  these  appeals  and  Special  Leave  Petitions  have  been
      preferred against various impugned judgments and orders passed by  the
      High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in various appeals including M.A.
      No. 2588 of 2004 by which the High Court has enhanced  the  amount  of
      compensation.


      2.    The facts and circumstances giving rise  to  these  appeals  and
      special leave petitions  mostly  disposed  of  by  a  common  judgment
      impugned before us had been that:
      A.    A huge chunk of land stood notified under Section 4 of the  Land
      Acquisition Act, 1894  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Act)  vide
      Notifications dated 4.3.1993, 13.5.1993 and 2.6.1995 for  the  use  of
      Defence Research and Development Organisation and the  possession  was
      taken after completing  all  the  requirements  under  the  Act.   The
      persons interested therein filed their claims under Section 5  of  the
      Act and  led  evidence,  on  the  basis  of  which  the  Special  Land
      Acquisition Officer (hereinafter called as the  `SLAO’)  had  assessed
      the market value of the land as Rs. 60,000/- per acre.
      B.  Aggrieved, the  respondents  approached  the  Reference  Court  by
      filing applications under Section 18 of  the  Act  and  the  Reference
      Court vide award dated 30.11.2002 assessed the  market  value  at  the
      rate of Rs. 3,15,000/- per acre and Rs.3,45000/- per acre with respect
      to Notifications dated 4.3.1993, 13.5.1993 and 2.6.1995 respectively.
      C.    Aggrieved, the Union of India filed appeals under Section 54  of
      the Act for reducing the amount of compensation before the High Court.
       Respondents preferred cross-objections which have  been  allowed  and
      the appeals of the Union of India have been dismissed. The High  Court
      further enhanced the market value of land at the rate of Rs. 7,70,000/-
       in respect of land acquired under Notifications  dated  4.3.1993  and
      13.5.1993 and enhanced the market value of the land covered under  the
      Notification dated 2.6.1995  to Rs.8,40,000/-.
            Hence, these appeals and special leave petitions.


      3.    The High Court had adopted the method of 10  per  cent  increase
      every year in the market value of the land and used  the  exemplar  to
      conclude that the appellant cannot be permitted to acquire the land of
      the respondents at the price lesser than the  market  value  of  their
      land.  The Court placed reliance  on  the  earlier  judgments  of  the
      Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka and held that  the  land
      was comparable to the lands wherein the  award  dated  13.11.2002  had
      been delivered in LAC No. 263 of 1996.  The land  in  question  had  a
      potential value on the date of preliminary Notification as was evident
      from the oral evidence adduced before the Reference Court.  There  was
      no dispute that the land which was subject matter of LAC 263  of  1996
      and the lands in question were in  contiguous  and  same  geographical
      situation.  After reaching the conclusion by the court, the award  was
      given as per the market value as referred to hereinabove.
      4.    The High Court relied upon the judgment in earlier case  in  LAC
      No. 263 of 1996 and reached the aforesaid conclusion. Considering  the
      geographical  situation  of  the  land,  it  cannot   be   held   that
      compensation awarded is not justified.


            We do not see any cogent reason to interfere with  the  impugned
      judgment and order, the appeals and special leave petitions lack merit
      and are accordingly dismissed.




                                                     ….………………………..........J.
                                                                (Dr.    B.S.
      CHAUHAN)




                                ……….......................................J.
                                                                         (J.
      CHELAMESWAR)


      NEW DELHI;
      February 26, 2014.








-----------------------
4


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.