* 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 – Respondentsland 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 ratesDate 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 followsAmount
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 datesDate 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
rateDate 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 followsAmount
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
datesDate 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 ratesDate 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 followsAmount
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.
