LexTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MALAPRABHA DAM PROJECT, SAUNDATTI ETC. versus MADIVALAPPA BASALINGAPPA MELAVANKI ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MALAPRABHA A DAM PROJECT, SAUNDATTI ETC. v. MADIVALAPPA BASALINGAPPA MELA VANKI ETC. AUGUST 16, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Ss. 23, 23(1-A), 23(2), 28-Acquisition of land-Award by reference court made on 14.12.81- Held: benefit under Amendment Act 68 of 1984 not to be extended-Claimants entitled to 15 per cent solatium on enhanced compensation and 5% interest per annum thereon under local amendment. B c Compensation-Computation-Capitalization-Proper multiplier- D Held, 10 years multiplier to be adopted. On acquisition of the lands belonging to the respondents, the Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at R. 3,000 per acre. The reference Court applied 15 years multiplier and, by its award dated E 14.12.1981, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 15,000 per Acre, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. The High Court, in the second appeal, held that in determining compensation on the basis of annual yield, application of 15 years multiplier would be illegal, but it declined to interfere with the order on the ground that the land in acquisition was only 38 gunthas. The High Court also applied the provisions of Sections 23(1- F A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984 but ." observed that it would be subject to the result in Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union Tenitory of Chandigarh, (1985] 2 SCC 737. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeals by Special leave; Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. The award of the reference court being of December 14, 1981, i.e.; much prior to the date when the Land Acquisition Amendment G Bill was introduced, the respondent- claimants are not entitled to the benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. It is settled law that if the H 785 786. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A claim is pending before the reference court on or after coming into force of the Amendment Act, viz., September 24, 1984, ~he Amendment Act gets attracted for pending claims during that interregnum. (787-E; D] B 1.2. The respondent-claimants are entitled to 15 per cent solatium on the enhanced compensation and 5 per cent interest thereon, as amended by the local Act, from the da 0 te of taking possession till the date of deposit or payment whichever is earlier. (787-G] 2.1. All cases including those arising from the notification whereunder the land in dispute has been acquired need to decided applying C 10 years multiplier. (787-D] Special Land Acquisition Officer Dayangere v. Veerabhadarappa etc. etc., AIR (1984) SC 774 relied on. 2.2. However, in the instant case, in view of the small extent of the D land under acquisition and the facts of the case, determination of compen- E sation on the basis of 15 years multiplier though wrongly applied, is not " upset. (787-D] · CIVIL APPELLATE JUJ3.ISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7870 of 1995 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.88 of the Karnataka High Court in Misc. Second Appeal No. 44 of 1985. M. Veerappa for the Appellant. F The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. The Court of Civil Judge in L.A.C. Nos. 263 and batch by award and decree dated 14th December, 1981 enhanced the compensation deter- G mined by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs. 3,000 per acre to Rs. 15,000 per acre. On appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') the Ilnd Additional District Judge, Belgaum by his common Judgment dated 25th August, 1983 confirmed the same. The High Court by the impugned order dated 29th January, 1988 in miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 44 of 1985 and batch held that in the determining H compensation on the basis of the annual yield by application of 15 years SPL.LANDACQSN.OFF1CER v. M.B.MELAVANKI 787 multiplier would be i 'legal, as held in Special Land Acquisition Officer, A Davangero v. P. Veerabhadarappa Etc. Etc., AIR (1984) SC 774. As for this decision, appropriate multiplier is 10. This view was reiterated in a number of decisions. However, the learned Judge declined to interfere with the order on the ground that the land in acquisition in this case was only of the extent B of 38 gunthas and it was held that "it is hardly appropriate to interfere with the award notwithstanding the discernible blemish pointed out· by the learned Government Pleader". The learned
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.