DEFENCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONversusANJANAPPA & ANR.

                         [2014] 3 S.C R. 322


A           DEFENCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
                      ORGANIZATION
                                  v.
                        ANJANAPPA & ANR.
                (Civil Appeal No. 7269 of 2013 etc)
B
                        FEBRUARY 26, 2014

      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.)

        LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
c
       Compensation - Award of compensation in respect of
  comparable lands - High Court enhanced market value of
  land, on the basis of comparable lands in other land·
  acquisition case - Held: High Court adopted the method of
0 10 per cent increase evety year in market value of land and
  used the exemplar to conclude that appellant could not be
  permitted to acquire land of respondents at the price lesser
  than the market value of their land - Land in question had a
  potential value on the date of preliminaty Notification as was
E evident from oral evidence adduced before reference court -
   There was no dispute that the land which was subject matter
  of another case and lands in question were in contiguous and
  same geographical situation - High Court relied upon the
  judgment in earlier case considering the geographical
  situation of the land -- It cannot be said that compensation
F awarded is not justified - There is no cogent reason to interfere
  with impugned judgment and order.
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    7269 of 2013.
G
        From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2009 of the
    High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 2588 of
    2004.


H                                322
    ~DEFENCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT                  323
      ORGANIZATION v. ANJANAPPA & ANR.
                             WITH                          A
SLP (C) No(s). 1046-1059 of 2009.

SLP(C) No(s). 17875-17881 of 2009.

SLP(C) No(s). 29763-29765 of 2010.                         B
SLP(C) No(s). 31805-31806 of 2010.

SLP(C) No(s). 35767-35778 of 2010.

SLP(C) No(s). 14378-14379 of 2013.                         c
SLP(C) No(s). 767-768 of 2011.

SLP(C) No(s). 23294-23337 of 2012,

SLP (C) No(s). 22532 of 2010.                              D
SLP(C) No(s). 22533-22534 of 2010.

SLP(C) No(s). 22535-22536 of 2010.

SLP(C) No(s). 22538-22539 of 2010.                         E
SLP(C) No(s). 25647-25648 of 2010.

SLP(C) No(s). 25649-25652 of 2010.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1425 of 2013.                             F
     S.W.A. Qadri, Kiran Bhardwaj, Mehmood Umar, B.V.
Balaram Das, Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad, Rajesh Mahale,
Krutin R. Joshi, Shialesh Madiyal, Aswathi, E.C. Vidya Sagar,
Devendra Singh, S.N. Bhat, Dasharath T.M., D.P. Chaturvedi,
M.A. Chinnasamy, K. Krishna Kumar, V. Senthil Kumar, S. G
Muthu Krishnan, Shankar Divate, E.R. Sumathy, Vaijayanthi
Girish, Anilendra Kant Srivastava, B.V. Bhandarkar, Ashok K.
Mishra, Naresh Kumar for the appearing parties.

    The following Order of-the Court was delivered         H
    324     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A                                ORDER

       1. All these appeals and Special Leave Petitions have
  been preferred against various impugned judgments and
  orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
B in various appeals including M.A. No. 2588 of 2004 by which
  the High Court has enhanced the amount of compensation.

        2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these
    appeals and special leave petitions mostly disposed of by a
    common judgment impugned before us had been that:

        A. A huge chunk of land stood notified under Section 4 of
  the. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the
  Act)vide Notifications dated 4.3.1993, 13.5.1993 and 2.6.1995
  for the use of Defence Research and Development
D Organisation and the possession was taken after completing
  all the requirements under the Act. The persons interested
  therein filed their claims under Section 5 of the Act and led
  evidence, on the basis of which the Special Land Acquisition
  Officer (hereinafter called as the · SLAO') had assessed the
E market value of the land as Rs. 60,000/- per acre.
         B. Aggrieved, the respondents approached the Reference
    Court by filing applications under Section 18 of the Act and the
    Reference Court vide award dated 30.11.2002 assessed the
    market value at the rate of Rs. 3, 15,000/- per acre and
F   Rs.3,45000/- per acre with respect to Notifications dated
    4.3.1993, 13.5.1993 and 2.6.1995 respectively.
        C. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed appeals under
   Section 54 of the Act for reducing the amount of compensation
G before the High Court. Respondents preferred cross-objections
   which have been allowed and the appeals of the Union of India
   have been dismissed. The High Court further enhanced the
   market value of land at the rate of Rs. 7,70,000/- in respect of
   land acquired under Notifications dated 4.3.1993 and
ti 13.5.1993 and enhanced the market value of the land covered
       DEFENCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT                       325
        ORGANIZATION v. ANJANAPPA & ANR.

under the Notification dated 2.6.1995 to Rs.8,40,000/-.            A

      Hence, these appeals and special leave petitions.

     3. The High Court had adopted the method of 10 per cent
increase every year in the market value of the land and used
the exemplar to conclude that the appellant cannot be permitted    8
to acquire _the land of the respondents at the price lesser than
the market value of their land. The Court placed reliance on the
earlier judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka and held that the land was comparable to the lands
wherein the award dated 13.11.2002 had been delivered in           C
LAC No. 263 of 1996. The land in question had a potential
value on the date of preliminary Notification as was evident
from the oral evidence adduced before the Reference Court.
There was no dispute that the land which was subject matter
of LAC 263 of 1996 and the lands in question were in               D
contiguous and same geographical situation. After reaching the
conclusion by the court, the award was given as per the market
value as referred to hereinabove.

     4. The High Court relied upon the judgment in earlier case    E
in LAC No. 263of1996 and reached the aforesaid conclusion.
Considering the geographical situation of the land, it cannot be
held that compensation awarded is not justified.

      We do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order, the appeals and special leave         F
petitions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.

RP.                                          SLPs dismissed.