Executive Engineer Vs Nagamma & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court of India disposed of a batch of civil appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings for the Upper Tunga Project in Karnataka. Most appeals were filed by Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (KNNL), the beneficiary of the acquisition, challenging compensation determined by the Reference Court and the Karnataka High Court. Approximately 3,036 hectares of land had been acquired through different proceedings over an extended period. The appeals were divided into three categories: those involving valuation based on a judgment dated 3 July 2010 concerning Alkola village; those relating to Abbalagere village in Shimoga District, where acquisition proceedings commenced through a notification dated 18 October 2000 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and cross-appeals filed by landowners seeking further enhancement. In the Abbalagere matters, the High Court had enhanced compensation from Rs. 2,75,000 per acre to Rs. 10,10,374 per acre.
KNNL contended that a sale transaction relating to Alkola village could not be mechanically applied to determine market value in other villages without considering their individual location, potential and comparable transactions. The principal sale exemplar involved a 40-square-foot residential plot sold on 5 January 1998 at Rs. 150 per square foot. Although the Reference Court had adopted that rate, the High Court reduced compensation to Rs. 105 per square foot after considering the agricultural character of the acquired land. The landowners, on the other hand, argued that the properties had non-agricultural potential because of their proximity to the national highway and sought higher compensation. The Supreme Court observed that where comparable sales from the same revenue estate are unavailable, courts may consider transactions involving neighbouring areas, subject to suitable deductions and adjustments. It found that the Reference Court and High Court had evaluated the available evidence, location and potential of the properties while estimating market value.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s valuation findings, observing that the assessments were essentially factual and no substantial question of law warranting interference had been raised. It accordingly dismissed KNNL’s appeals concerning both Alkola and Abbalagere. The landowners’ cross-appeals were also dismissed because they had produced no additional evidence supporting their claim that compensation should be enhanced to Rs. 250 per square foot. The Court clarified that other acquisition matters remanded to the High Court would be decided independently on their own merits. It directed the State of Karnataka and KNNL to deposit the compensation amounts with the Reference Court within 12 weeks for disbursement to the landowners in accordance with law. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and the necessary procedural orders concerning substitution of legal representatives and amendment of the cause title were also passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. The application for deleting the name of respondent No.3 in C.A.Nos.6167-6169/2021 is disposed of as having become infructuous.
3. The application for substituting the names of LRs of respondent No.1 in C.A.Nos.6167-6169/2021 @ C.A.Nos.6160-6170/2021, is allowed, and the LRs of deceased respondent No.1 are ordered to be brought on record.
4. Cause-title be amended accordingly.
5. Leave granted in SLP(C) No.20408/2021, SLP(C) Nos.5410- 5411/2022, SLP(C) No.11626-11627/2022, SLP(C) No.3879/2022, SLP(C) No.2479/2022, SLP(C) No.2478/2022, SLP(C) Nos.18096-18098/2022, SLP(C) No.4295/2023, SLP(C) Nos.20213-20220/2023, SLP(C) Nos.1801- 1802/2021, SLP(C) No.10597/2022, SLP(C) No.11048/2022, SLP(C) No.10942/2022, SLP(C) Nos.11991-11992/2022, SLP(C) No.8984/2022, SLP(C) No.12443/2022, SLP(C) Nos.1420-1421/2021, SLP(C) No.1649/2021, SLP(C) No.11804/2022 and SLP(C) Nos.12831- 12834/2022.
6. All these Civil Appeals are disposed of by way of a common order.
7. Most of the appeals are at the instance of Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, namely, the beneficiary of the land acquisition. The subject land, which is stated to be measuring approximately 3036 hectares, has been acquired through various acquisition processes at different points of time and in long duration for the execution of Upper Tunga Project. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant(s) has divided these appeals in two sub- categories. In appeals falling under the first sub-category, the compensation has been determined on the basis of the judgment dated 03.07.2010, passed by the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.12/2008 and connected matters of Alkola village. The second sub-category of appeals pertain to village Abbalagere of Shimoga District where the acquisition was initiated through Notification dated 18.10.2000, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and eventually, the High Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,75,000/- per acre (granted by the Reference Court) to Rs.10,10,374/- per acre. Apart from these, there is a third sub- category of appeals also, which can be termed as cross appeals at the instance of some of the land owners, who are seeking further enhancement of compensation.
8.We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant- Corporation, learned Senior Counsel for some of the land owners/ cross appellants as well as other learned counsel in support and against these appeals and perused the record.
9.The primary contention of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Corporation is that the sale instance of village Alkola, which pertains to the first sub-category, could not be mechanically applied for determination of market value of the land in other villages. It is urged that the potentiality of the acquired land of each village ought to have been determined on the basis of the sale instances of close proximity.
10.With reference to village Alkola, it is pointed out that a Sale Deed dated 05.01.1998, for an area measuring 40 sq.ft., sold at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.ft., was the sole basis for grant of compensation by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.ft. The High Court, however, reduced the compensation to Rs.105 per sq.ft. after observing that the acquired land is of agricultural in nature whereas the exemplar, referred to above, pertains to a residential plot.
11.Per contra, the respondents have contended that since the subject lands about the national highway and as they have non- agricultural potentiality, they are entitled to further enhancement.
12.Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, and on consideration of the approximate location of the acquired lands as well as the inter-se distance between different parcels of the acquired land, we are satisfied that the Reference Court as well as the High Court have made an effort to estimate the the potentiality and the market value of the subject land after taking into consideration the evidence on record with some guess work added therein. It is well settled that in the absence of exemplars pertaining to the same revenue estate, the Reference Court or the High Court is justified in relying upon the similar sale instances of neighboring areas with an appropriate deduction, if so required, keeping in view the peculiar location of the acquired land.1 We find that the High Court, in the impugned judgments, has undertaken such an exercise after perusing the material on record and has determined the estimated value based on nature and location of the land. That being the case, even if the view taken by the High Court is assumed to be factually erroneous in one or the other matter, it being a finding of fact and no substantial question of law having been raised, we do not deem it necessary to interfere with these judgments. The appeals preferred by the Corporation, pertaining to the first and the second sub- category as mentioned in paragraph 7 of this order, are dismissed.
13.Adverting to the third sub-category, i.e., the cross- appeals filed by some of the land owners, we find that both the Reference Court and the High Court have already considered the best of the evidence produced by them. There is no additional material to support landowners’ assertion that the market value of the land, at the time of acquisition, could be Rs.250/- per sq.ft. We, thus, find no merit in their appeals as well. All the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
14.We are informed that some of the matters pertaining to the acquisition of some related project have been remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication. It is clarified that those cases shall be decided by the High Court as per their own merit without being influenced by the fact that in the instant case, we have declined to interfere with the determination of the market value of the acquired land.
15.The State of Karnataka and the appellant-Corporation are directed to deposit the compensation amount with the Reference Court within 12 weeks, which shall, thereafter, be disbursed to the land owners in accordance with law.
16.As a sequel to the above, all the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
1. Delay condoned.
2. The application for deleting the name of respondent No.3 in C.A.Nos.6167-6169/2021 is disposed of as having become infructuous.
3. The application for substituting the names of LRs of respondent No.1 in C.A.Nos.6167-6169/2021 @ C.A.Nos.6160-6170/2021, is allowed, and the LRs of deceased respondent No.1 are ordered to be brought on record.
4.Cause-title be amended accordingly.
5. Leave granted in SLP(C) No.20408/2021, SLP(C) Nos.5410- 5411/2022, SLP(C) No.11626-11627/2022, SLP(C) No.3879/2022, SLP(C) No.2479/2022, SLP(C) No.2478/2022, SLP(C) Nos.18096-18098/2022, SLP(C) No.4295/2023, SLP(C) Nos.20213-20220/2023, SLP(C) Nos.1801- 1802/2021, SLP(C) No.10597/2022, SLP(C) No.11048/2022, SLP(C) No.10942/2022, SLP(C) Nos.11991-11992/2022, SLP(C) No.8984/2022, SLP(C) No.12443/2022, SLP(C) Nos.1420-1421/2021, SLP(C) No.1649/2021, SLP(C) No.11804/2022 and SLP(C) Nos.12831- 12834/2022.
6. The appeals preferred by the Corporation, pertaining to the first and the second sub-category as mentioned in paragraph 7 of this order, are dismissed.
7. The cross-appeals filed by some of the land owners are also dismissed in terms of the signed order.
8. As a sequel to the above, all the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
Notes:-
1 Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769, para 90; ONGC Ltd. v.Sendhabhai Vastram Patel, (2005) 6 SCC 454, para 15.
