SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, U.K. PROJECT. versus MAHABOOB & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 881 
lllJJ. r 
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, U.K.PROJECT. 
A 
v 
MAHABOOB & ANR. 
Special Leave Petition [C] No. 4782 of 2009 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
s. 
(R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND J. M. PANCHAL, JJ ) 
Land Acquisition : 
'i-
Realistic compensation to land-owners with appropriate 
--1' 
rehabilitation measure - Need for- Court taking judicial notice c 
of the fact that in several States awards of reference courts or 
judgments of High Courts and Supreme Court increasing the 
----\ 
compensation are not complied with and land losers are again 
driven to courts to initiate time consuming execution process 
~ 
involving considerable expense to recover their just due - In D 
the process land owners are striped of their land and livelihood 
- Steps required to be taken within the frame work of existing 
law to provide succour to land losers, namely: (a) Collector/ 
LA 0 should offer compensation which is reasonable and 
realistic and very near to value; (b) Whenever courts increase 
E 
I 
the compensation, instead of mechanically filing appeals in 
"' 
all cases, or delaying payments without apparent reason, an 
effort should be made to pay the increases awarded by court 
,._ 
promptly; (c) The government and/or beneficiaries of 
acquisition should encourage and resort to negotiations to 
arrive at a mutually acceptable amount of compensation; (d) F 
Avenues of rehabilitation by way of employment, housing, 
investment opportunities, identification of alternative lands, 
may be explored and implemented - Judicial Notice. 
Government Litigation : 
G 
' 
.., 
Delay in filing - HELD: More than half the number of 
• 
SLPs filed in Supreme Court are by the State Governments 
and Union of India - About 90% of these SLPs are filed with 
applications for condonation of delay - The delay is usually 
881 
H 
< . 
'--
/. r 
I 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 2 S.C.R. 
' 
A condoned keeping in view the administrative snarls and . 
, ,..
B 
bottlenecks, governmental procedures and ·the public interest 
- But there is an urgent need to streamline the 'decision 
making process' in filing 'special leave petitions' and reduce 
the delay - Delay. 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 : 
Petition for special leave to appeal - Drafting of- HELD: 
It is a matter of concern that minimum care is not taken even 
to :verify Jhe petition before filing - Frequency of carelessly 
c. drafted SLPs is rapidly increasing - The very~ purpose of 
requiring SLPs to be filed only through Advocates-on-record 
would be defeated if SLPs prepared by som~ ·other counsel 
are mechanically filed without examination or verification by -
the Advocate-on-record - The remedy by way of special leave 
0 
under Article 136 of the Constitution is an extra-ordinary 
remedy, intended to .be invoked in special cases and should 
not be treated so casually, negligently or routinely -
Constitution· of India,· 1950 - Article 136. ~, 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
E . Petition [C] No.4782 of 2009 
F 
From the Judgement and Order dated 26.10,2007 of the 
High CourtofKarnataka at Bangalore in M.S.A. No. 121 of2006. 
Anitha Shenor, for the Appellant. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
. R. V. RAVEENDRAN J., 
This case relates to acquisition of 1 acre 13·guntas of land 
belonging to respondents 1 and 2. Notification under section~ __ 
G 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on · -· 
,,. 
,l 
20.12.1990. The land Acquisition Officer, by award dated 
i 
11.9~ 1991, assessed the compensation at Rs.4,000/- peracr,e. 
The reference court, by award dated 10.3.2005, increased the 
compensation lo Rs.30,420/- per acre, by capitalizing the 
H agricultural income from the crops of jowar and tur. The petitioner 
... 
I 
• 
. ,J 
-~~ 
l l 
i· 
......_ 
t• 
:\ 
I 
~ 
lo--
!· 
(l 
J 
1 
I~
) 
,, 
I •
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, U.K.PROJECT. 883 
V. MAHABOOB & ANR. [R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.] 
..... 
~ 
filed an appeal, contending that the compensation was A 
excessive. The said appeal was dismissed by the first appellate 
court on 23.12.2005. The second appeal by the petitioner was 
also dismissed by the High Court on 26.10.2007. By this 
petition, the petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against 
the said judgment. 
B 
Drafting of S12ecial Leave Petition 
, 
2. The petition states that the following "questions of law 
of general importance" arise for consideration : 
(i) Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the c 
appeal filed by the petitione

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.