LexGIRIMALLAPPA versus THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER M & MIP & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2012] 6 S.C.R. 975 GIRIMALLAPPA V. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER M & MIP & ANR. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21397 of 2012) JULY 16, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1892: s.28-A - Re-determination of compensation on the basis of award of court ~ Held: The area of land acquired makes it clear that the petitioner was a man of means - He did not file A B c a reference u/s 18 of the Act, but his application uls 28-A of the Act was entertained - However, as the said order has not 0 been challenged by the respondent(s), Supreme Court cannot examine the issue further, even if the order is totally unwarranted - B'esides, petitioner's claim in the first appeal before the District Judge had been to the tune of Rs.24,0001 - per acre which had been allowed - In appeal before the High E Court, no specified amount was demanded by the petitioner - The memo of appeal reveals that Rs.25 was paid as court fee - High Court dealt with the issue elaborately taking note of the earlier proceedings so far including the order passed uls 28-A of the Act and condonation of delay of 1717 by the first appellate court - SLP is also delayed by 154 days, though F the said delay has been condoned - Mere making a reference in the memo of appeal that the High Court had awarded a higher amount in respect of a land covered by the same Notification u/s 4 of the Act, is not enough - Claimant has to satisfy the court that his land was similar in quality and had G same geographical location or was situated in close vicinity of the land covered by the exemplar relied upon by him - In the instant case, no such attempt has ever been made by the petitioner - Thus, it is not that a meritorious case has been 975 H 976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A thrown out and the cause of justice stood defeated - It cannot be. said that the High Court preferred technicalities over substantial justice - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Delayllaches. 8 State of Orissa & Ors. v. Chitrasen Bhoi 2009 (14) SCR 558 =JT 2009 (13) SC 388 - relied on c Chandrashekhar & Ors. v. Addi. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2009 (10) SCR 505 =AIR 2009 SC 3012 - held inapplicable Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (AA) & Anr. 2009 (4) SCR 1183 = (2009) 14 SCC 338; and Harcharan v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 43; Delhi Administration vs. Gurudeep Singh Uban 2000 (2) Suppl. 0 SCR 496 = 2000 AIR 3737 - referred to. E F Case Law Reference: 2009 (14) SCR 558 relied on para 5 2009 (10) SCR 505 held inapplicable para 12 2009 (4) SCR 1183 referred to para 13 AIR 1983 SC 43 referred to para 14 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 496 referred to para 17 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21397 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.9.2011 of the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Misc. Second G Appeal No. 510 of 2010 (LAC). H Kiran Suri, Aparna Mattoo, Nakibur Rahman for the Appellant. The Order of the Court was delivered GIRIMALLAPPA v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION 977 OFFICER M & MIP ORDER A 1. Delay condoned. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that: A. A huge area of land was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'Act') on 30.5.1984 including the petitioner's land measuring 11 Acres 8 32 ~untas at Gobbur (K) Village in District Gulbarga for the purpose of construction of a tank. The possession of the said c land has been taken by the respondent authorities on 23.6.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector made an Award under Section 11 of the Act fixing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 3800/- per Acre. B. One LAC Case No. 500 of 1993 filed by another person D was decided by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act on 28.9.1994. While placing reliance on the same, the petitioner filed application under Section 28-A of the Act. The said application was allowed fixing the market value of the dry land at the rate of Rs.10000/- per Acre. Petitioner preferred a E further reference against that order claiming Rs.45000/- per Acre for dry land and Rs.75000/- per Acre for irrigated lands. The said reference was decided vide order dated 27.9.2003 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs. 15000/- perAcre for dry land and Rs.21500/- per Acre for irrigated land. F C. Aggrieved from the said refe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.