K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERSversusTHE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION)

                            [2017] 6 S.C.R. 524



A                  K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS
                                     v.
    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION)
                      (Civil Appeal No. 9288 of 2017)
B                              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 -
c   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
D   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
E   - 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   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

H
                                  524
    K. SUB BARAYUDU 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            referred to        Para 12

        2014 (9) SCALE 441          referred to        Para 13

        [2007] 7 SCR 3562           referred to        Para 15            E

        (2011) 11   sec 639         referred to        Para 18

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9288
of 2017.
                                                                          F
        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.
                                                                          G
        Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv., V. Sridhar Reddy, Abhijit Sengupta,
Advs. for the Appellants.

        Guntur Prabhakar, Ms.. Prema Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

                                                                          H
526           . SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017) 6 S.C.R.


A             The Order of the Court was delivered by

                                      ORDER
              R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted.
              2. This appeal by way of special leave under Section 54 of the
B     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.
c
               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 Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project. After conducting
D     the award enquiry, Land Acquisition Officer, Telugu Ganga Project, Rapur
      passed an award, in Award No.12/91-92 dated 30.01.1992. The award
      was passed after taking into account the sale statistics for the preceding
      three years prior to the date of notification under Section 4( I) of the
      Land Acquisition Act which was obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Rapur
      and after verification of all sales, the land value is fixed by the Land
 E    Acquisition Officer and approv~d 'Jy the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga
      Project, Nellore as per norms prescribed under the Land Acquisition
      Act, 1894 amended in 1984. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO)
      awarded compensation for cultivable dry lands at Rs.9,000/- per acre
      and for cultivable waste land at Rs. 7,000/- peracre. The Land Acquisition
      Officer also awarded compensation of Rs.50-70 for each lime tree and
 F    compensation ofRs.32 for each pomegranate tree. The land was taken
      possession on 02.03.1994 and compensation paid to the land owners.
               4. As against compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
      Officer, reference was made under Section 18 of the Act to the Senior
      Civil Judge, Gudur. Before the reference court, on behalf of the
 G    claimants, CW-1 was examined and Exs.Al to AS were marked. On
      behalf of the referring officer, one of its employees was examined as
      R.W.1 and the particulars showing the compensation awarded by the
      LAO, Ex.B 1 was marked. The Reference Court by its judgment and
      order dated 06.08.2004 in LAOP No.22/1993 enhanced the market value
 H
K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY 527
   COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) [R. BANUMATHI, J.].

of land from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.12,000/- for cultivable dry land and to        A
Rs. 7000/- to Rs. I 0000/- for cultivable waste land per acre. Further the
Reference Court fixed the market value of the trees to Rs. I 00/- per tree
as against Rs.SO/- to Rs.70/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer
and confirmed the rate ofRs.32/- per pomegranate tree as fixed by the
Land Acquisition Officer basing on the age of the trees.
                                                                             B
        5. Dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation, the appellants/
claimants approached the High Court referring to the order in A.S.
No.1749/2004 dated 01.03.2013 and other judgments of Andhra Pradesh
High Court. However, there was a delay of 3671 days in so preferring
the appeal. The High Court dismissed L.A.A.S.(MP) No.61/2015 in
L.AA.S. (SR) No.12334/2014 on the ground of inordinate delay of367 l         c
days since the High Court was of the view that no sufficient cause was
shown for the delay and held that the delay sought to be condoned was
not on account of a bona fide mistake but was merely intended to make
gain basing on the assessment of value of pomegranate trees in the
decisions of Peddireddy Madhava Reddy and Pidugu Seshugari                   D
Lakshmi Devi.
        6. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellants are
before us by way of special leave to appeal.
         7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High
Court failed to appreciate that the claimants have given satisfactory E
explanation for the delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal before the
High Court and while so the High Court has erred in declining to condone
the delay. It was further submitted that in L.A.S.S.No.46/2015, the
High Court was pleased to condone the delay of 3386 days in filing the
land acquisition appeal suit subject to the condition that in the event, the F
appellants/claimants succeed in the appeal, she is not entitled to any
interest in respect of the period of delay and the same approach ought to
have been given in case of appellants also. In so far as the quantum of
compensation, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the
decision of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.11404-405 of2016 dated
29.11.2016 whereby this Court has awarded compensation ofRs.3,000/ G
- per pomegranate tree in connection with lands acquired for Somashila
Project submergence. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed
that the same amount of compensation of Rs.3,000/- per pomegranate
tree be awarded to the appellant.
                                                                             H
528             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 6 S.C.R.



A              8. Per contra, supporting the judgment of the High Court, the
      learned counsel for the respondent submitted that reason for inordinate
      delay of3671 days was not satisfactorily explained and the High Court
      rightly exercised its discretion in declining to condone the delay. Insofar
      as the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of2016 is concerned,
      it is submitted that the said order relates to Somashila Project
B
      submergence of which the award was of the year 1999 and the same
      cannot be applied to the present case.
              9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.
      Perused the impugned judgment and considered the documents and other
      materials placed on record.
c
               10. The High Court dismissed the claimants' appeal mainly on
      the ground of delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of
      records, it is seen that the appellants have explained the reason for the
      delay in filing the appeal stating that they have entrusted the relevant
      papers to their co-villagernamely, viz., Pullaiah who is well-conversant
D     with the court proceedings and the said Pullaiah has also taken steps to
      engage an advocate at Hyderabad and the said Pullaiah informed that
      the appeal was filed and left for Kuwait to eke out his livelihood. Thus
      the appellants/claimants were under the impression that the appeal has
      been filed. The claimants have further stated that when they inquired
E     the said Pullaiah, he informed them that he went to the house of Sri
      Jaganmohan Raju, Advocate and he learnt that the said Advocate is no
      more and expired in 2012 itself and on enquiry with the clerk of the said
      advocate, he learnt that no appeal has been filed and this has caused a
      delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal. The High Court rejected the
      explanation given by the appellants on the ground that there are
 F    contradictions between the affidavit filed by the said Pullaiah and the
      stand of the··daimants and being not satisfied with the reason for the
      delay of 3671 days in preferring the appeal, the High Court dismissed
      the appeal.
              11. Before the High Court, the appellants relied upon Yeliasiri
 G    Sarojanamma's case, in L.A.S.S. No.46 of 2015, in which the High
      Court condoned the delay of3386 days in filing th.eland acquisition appeal
      suit subject to the condition that in the event, the appellant/claimant
      thereon succeed in appeal, she is not entitled to any interest in respect of
      the period of delay. The appellants contended that the same approach
H     ought to have been adopted in the case of appellants also. Insofar as,
K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY 529
   COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

the reliance placed upon by the claimants in L.A.S.S. No.46/2015, the . A
High Court seems to have brushed aside the contention of the appellants
on the puerile ground t.hat the relevant fact situation in the said case is
not forthcoming in the said order. In our view, the High Court was not
right in adopting a different yardstick in the case of the appellants in not
condoning the delay.
                                                                             B
          12. The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction
so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or
want of bona fide is attributable to the appellants, the Court should
adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay. In State of
Nagalandv. LipokAO and Others (2005) 3 SCC 752: 2005 (4) JT 10,
it was held as under:-                                                       c
       "Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice
       to the parties. The provision contemplates that the court has to
       go into the position of the person concerned and to find out ifthe
       delay can be said to have been resulted from the cause which he
       had adduced and whether the cause recorded in the peculiar                D
       circumstances of the case is sufficient".
          13. With the acquisition oflands, the lifeline of the agriculturist
is lost. There may be omission on the part of the claimants to 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              E
agriculturists, the courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award
just and reasonable compensation and not pedantic in their approach. In
Dhiraj Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. Etc. Etc. v. Haryana State and Ors. Etc.
Etc. 2014 (9) SCALE 441, it was held as under:-
       "15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants' interest         F
       for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The
       substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be
       defeated on technical grounds by taking hyper technical view of
       self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land
       acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the Court has to         G
       be pragmatic and not pedantic."
          14. When the concerned court has exercised its discretion either
condoning or declining to condone the delay, normally the superior court
will not interfere in exercise of such discretion. The true guide is whether
the litigant has acted with due diligence. Since the appellants/claimants        H
530             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A     are the agriculturists whose lands were acquired and when similar situated
      agriculturists were given a higher rate of compensation, there is no reason
      to decline the same to the appellants. Merely on the ground of delay
      such benefit cannot be denied to the appellants. The interest of justice
      would be served by declining the interest on the enhanced compensation
B     and also on the solatium and other statutory benefits for the period of
      delay.
              15. Insofar as the compensation for the pomegranate trees, the ·
      appellants have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated
      29.11.2016, in C.A. Nos.11404-11405 of2016. Planting, raising and
      making commercial use of fruit bearing trees is a painstaking affair and
C     cost of the same is consistently on rise as the years are passing by
      which is to be kept in view. Award of compensation in relation to fruit
      bearing trees depends on facts and circumstances of each case. It has
      been held in Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Livisha and Ors. (2007)
      6 sec 792, in the following terms:
D           "I I. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees
            are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and
            circumstances of each case. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent
            decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamandana
            Ramakrishna Rao AIR 2007 SC 1142 wherein claim on yield basis
E           has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of
            compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, same
            principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistry v. Financial
            Commission and Revenue Secretary to Govt. of Punjab and Ors.
            , State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. [ 1995] I SCR
            408, and Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy [2002] 2
 F          SCR 505."
         16. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, in C.A.
  Nos.11404-405 of 2016, considering the cost of planting and efforts
  involved in growing trees in general and in particular raising the
  pomegranate trees over the efflux of time, this Court deemed it
G appropriate to award Rs.3,000/- as compensation for each of the
  pomegranate tree.

               17. However, the compensation of Rs. 3000/- per pomegranate
      tree, as has been awarded in the abovementioned case, cannot be made
      applicable to the present case, considering the fact that award of
H
K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY 531
   COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) [R. BANUMATHI, J.}

compensation by Land Acquisition Officer in the said case dated               A
08.03.1999, as opposed to award in the present case which is dated
30.01.1992. A 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. In the facts and
                                                                              B
circumstances of the present case and taking into consideration that the
appellants were also awarded compensation for the land, we deem it
appropriate to award compensation ofRs.1500/- for each pomegranate
tree.

         18. In so far as the lime trees are concerned, fresh limes are       c
available throughout the year and have good market and the lime trees
are earning income almost throughout the year. The Reference Court
enhanced the compensation of Rs.70/- to Rs.100/- per tree as against
the compensation of Rs.52/- to Rs. 70/- awarded by the Land Acquisi-
tion Officer. While considering the question of awarding compensation
to lime trees, in Shaik Jmambi v. Special Deputy Collector (Land              D
Acquisiton), Telugu Ganga Project (2011) II SCC 639, this Court
held as under:-

      "10. There is no specific documentary evidence in regard to the
      actual income from the orchard. As the reports of experts of the
                                                                              E
      state government assessed the gross annual income from each
      tree as Rs.150-200/-, it would be appropriate to take the average
      thereof, namely Rs.175/- as the annual income per tree in this
      case. If Rs.35/- is deducted towards the cost of cultivation and
      other expenses as recommended by the experts, the net annual
      income would have been Rs.140/- per tree or Rs.1,06,540/- for           F
      761 trees."

        Applying the ratio of the above decision, Rs.250/- is awarded as
the annual income per tree. Compensation of Rs. I 00/- per each lime
tree enhanced to Rs.250/- is awarded.
                                                                              G
        19. Compensation awarded to the appellants is enhanced to
Rs.1,500/- for each pomegranate tree and Rs.250/- for each lime tree.
The appellants are also entitled to all statutory benefits likesolatium and
other benefits and interest on the same. It is fl.lfther directed that the

                                                                              H
532                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 6 S.C.R.



·A    appellants shall not be entitled to any interest during the period of delay
      of 3671 days. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. Parties
      are to bear their respective costs.


      Nidhi Jain                                              Appeal partly allowed.