K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS versus THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION)

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 19-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 524 
K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) 
(Civil Appeal No. 9288 of 2017) 
JULY 19,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 54 - Compensation for fruit 
bearing trees - Land acquisition by award dated 30.01.1992 -
Compensation for the fruit bearing trees, Rs. 50-70 for each lime 
tree and Rs. 321- for each pomegranate tree - Reference court 
enhanced the compensation to Rs. JOO/- per lime tree, but for 
pomegranate tree it remained same -,. Appeal by claimants seeking 
enhancement of compensation - Dismissed by the High Court on 
the ground of inordinate delay of 3671 days - Held: There may be 
omission on the part of the claimants lo adopt extra vigilance; but 
same need not be used as a ground to depict them with negligence 
or want of bona fide - In case of acquisition of lands of 
agriculturists, the courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to 
award just and reasonable compensation and not pedantic approach 
- Since the appellants/claimants are the agriculturists whose lands 
were acquired and when similar situated agriculturists were given 
a higher rate of compensation, no reason to decline the same to the 
appellants, merely on the ground of delay - More so, in a similar 
matter, the High Court had condoned the delay of 3386 days in 
filing the land acquisition appeal - Furthermore, award of 
F 
compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees depends on facts 
and circumstances of each case - Appellant sought compensation 
of Rs.3, 0001- per pomegranate tree relying on judgment of this Court 
which cannot be made applicable to the instant case since the award 
of compensation in the said case was of 08. 03.1999, as opposed to 
G 
H 
instant award of 30.01.1992 - Period of about seven years is a 
considerable period to be taken note of while computing cost of 
planting and raising fruit bearing trees - It is obvious that seven 
years back a fruit bearing tree would have fetched lesser income 
than it would fetch now - On facts, appellants awarded compensation 
524 
K. SUB BARA YUDU AND OTHERS 
v. THE SPECIAL 
525 
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) 
of Rs.1,5001- for each pomegranate tree - As regards lime trees, 
A 
fresh limes are available throughout the year and have good market 
and the lime trees are earning income almost throughout the year -
Compensation of Rs. 100/- per each lime tree enhanced to 
Rs.250/- - Said compensation is awarded along with all sta,tutory 
benefits - Howeve1; appellants not entitled to any interest during 
B 
the period of delay of 3671 days. 
State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Others (2005) 3 
SCC 752: (2005] 3 SCR 108; 2005 (4) JT 10; Dhiraj 
Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. Etc. Etc. v. Haryana State and Ors. 
Etc. Etc. 2014 (9) SCALE 441; Kera/a State Electricity 
c 
Board v. Livisha and Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 79 : (2007] 7 
SCR 3562; Shaik Imambi v. Special Deputy Collector 
(Land Acquisiton), Telugu Ganga Project (2011) 11 SCC 
639 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
D 
[2005] 3 SCR 108 
2014 (9) SCALE 441 
[2007] 7 SCR 3562 
(2011) 11 sec 639 
referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 12 
Para 13 
Para 15 
Para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9288 
of 2017. 
From the Jtidgment and Order dated 12.07.2016 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the 
State of Andhra Pradesh in L.A.A.S.M.P. No. 6!of2015 in L.A.A.S. 
(SR) No. 12334 of2014. 
Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv., V. Sridhar Reddy, Abhijit Sengupta, 
Advs. for the Appellants. 
Guntur Prabhakar, Ms .. Prema Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
526 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
ORDER 
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal by way of special leave under Section 54 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been preferred by the claimant assailing 
the judgment and order dated 12.07.2016 in L.A.A.S.M.P. No.61 of 
2015 in L.A.A.S.(SR) No.12334 of 2014 passed by the High Court of 
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of 
Andhra Pradesh by which the High Court declined to condone the delay 
of 3671 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal. 
3. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 was issued on 01.10.1990 for acquiring land to an extent of 
Acs.32. 77 in Reach No. I I ofNellepalli village for foreshore submersion 
of Kan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.