Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as having no merit, albeit condoning the delay in filing.

Summary

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (U.K. Project) appealed against a reference court award that increased compensation for 1 acre 13 guntas of land from Rs.4,000 to Rs.30,420 per acre. Both the first and second appeals were dismissed by the High Court, after which a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed alleging procedural irregularities and delay. The Supreme Court observed that the SLP contained no substantive grounds of law, the alleged questions of law were irrelevant, and the petition was carelessly drafted. While the Court condoned the 135‑day delay in filing the SLP, it dismissed the petition for lack of merit, noting no fault with the advocate‑on‑record. The judgment also highlighted systemic problems in land‑acquisition compensation and the need for prompt, realistic payments and rehabilitation measures.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits due to delay in filing an application for condonation of delay.
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the High Court erred in ignoring the argument that separate fodder value cannot be taken into account for market value determination.
Whether the Special Leave Petition was maintainable in the absence of any specific ground of law or question of law.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18(1), s. 4(1)
Limitation Acts. 5
Supreme Court Ruless. 1966

Subjects

land acquisitioncompensationspecial leave petitiondelaycondonation of delayrehabilitationArticle 136Land Acquisition ActLimitation ActSLP drafting

Judgment

[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-
--1'
Realistic compensation to land-owners with appropriate
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
I the compensation, instead of mechanically filing appeals in E
"' 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 . , ,..
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.
B
...
.I ,J •
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 : -~~

l
Petition for special leave to appeal - Drafting of- HELD: l
It is a matter of concern that minimum care is not taken even ,,. i·

to :verify Jhe petition before filing - Frequency of carelessly ......_
t•
c. drafted SLPs is rapidly increasing - The very~ purpose of :\
I
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 - lo--
!·
the Advocate-on-record - The remedy by way of special leave
under Article 136 of the Constitution is an extra-ordinary ,l
0
remedy, intended to .be invoked in special cases and should (l

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 J
1

From the Judgement and Order dated 26.10,2007 of the I~
)
High CourtofKarnataka at Bangalore in M.S.A. No. 121 of2006.
Anitha Shenor, for the Appellant.
F 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 · -· ,,

•
I
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
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 petitioner without considering the merits
of the case, only on the ground that there is delay in filing
the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the
application for bringing the legal representatives of the
deceased respondent No.1 on record? D
(ii) Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the
appeal even without considering the application for
condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing
the legal representatives of the deceased Respondents
on record, when the petitioner has explained the delay in E
filing with cogent reasons which constitutes 'sufficient
cause' as cont.em plated under section 5 of the Limitation
~
Act?
(iii) Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the F
appeal without appreciating the fact that the separate value
for fodder cannot be taken into account for determination
of market value of the land.
Strangely none of these questions relates to this case nor
arise in this case. Neither of the claimants-respondents died, G
-.\ though question (i) gives an impression that first respondent
had died and question (ii) gives an impression that both
respondents died during the pendency of the appeal before the
High Court. No application was filed eitherfor bringing the legal
representatives of any respondent on record, or for condoning H

1'
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A 'the.delay in filing such application. Nor did the High Court refer
to or take. into consideration the value of fodder separately for ,
determination of compensation, as stated ·in question (iii). \

·, i.' 3. We may nextturn to the grounds on which leave to
1
appeal is sought. The only two grounds mentioned in the special
B· leave petition are extracted below : ·
I
"5.1: It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court misdirected
I'
itself on facts and in law which has resulted in the passing '.lj

of an erroneous ·order and the same is liable to be set 'T
c aside.
5.2; It is submitted that the petitioner herein had acquired ~
I:
the land in ~y. No.139/3 (Dry) measuring 01-13 situated at I
Magangere under Section 4(1) Notification dated .....
20.12.1990 and the award is .passed on 10.3.2005 >-
;. Ii..._
determining the market value at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The
respondents, being not satisfied with the said amount, F=
filed a :petition under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition
I.-
Act' for enhancement. The Reference Court, after
registering the case in. L.A.C. No.907/2000 and after L I
E hearing the parties, enhanced the 'compensation amount t
from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.30,420/;. dated 10.3.2005. The
_~'petitioner:· being aggrieved by the same, filed L.A. C. •
;.
< Appeal Nos.67 and 68 of 2005. The learned Ill Addi. District -J
Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal by
F the jud9ment dated 23.12.2005 in L.A.C. No.67/2005.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented .11
the above Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.121/2006
(before the High Court)."
The first para contains a standard ground usually ,
I
,____
G incorporated in appeals/special leave petitions. The second ~

para is not a ground for seeking leave to appeal, but merely a /.-
~
narration of facts. Thus in effect there is no ground on which
leave to appeal is sought.
4. Thus the special leave petition ('SLP' for short) is filed
H t;
r--
-9
t-~ ,,
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, U.K.PROJECT. 885
V. MAHABOOB & ANR. [R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.]

.. 1' without any grounds in support of it or questions of law. The A
possibility of any mix up in typing is ruled out because Para 5.2
narrates the facts correctly and other portions of the petition
. . show that it relates to the case on hand. The notings at the end
of the memorandum of special leave petition states that it has
been "Drawn by 'B', High Court Government pleader" and "Filed B:
by 'A', Advocate for the petitioner State". It is a matter of concern
that minimum care is not taken even to verify the petition before
.. filing. The frequency of carelessly drafted SLPs is rapidly
increasing. The very purpose of requiring SLPs to be filed only
through Advocates-on-record would be defeated if SLPs c
prepared by some other counsel are mechanically filed without
examination or verification by the Advocate-on-record. The
remedy by way of special leave 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.
D

Delay in filing
5. We may now turn to the aspect relating to delay of 135
days in filing the SLP. The reasons given for explaining the delay
is typical, and extracted below. E

"2. The impugned order is dated26.10.2007. The State has
applied for issue of Certified copy of the impugned Order on
7 .11.2007and the same was ready and delivered on
21.1.2008. The Certified Copy of the judgment passed in F
MSA No. 121/2006 and the opinion of the Government
Advocate, High Court was sent to the Special Officer, Legal
Cell and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary to Government, UKP,
vide letter No. 6584/AGA/07-08 dated 24.1.2008. The
Special Officer, Legal Cell, UKP, has forwarded the same to
G
-~
the government vide letter no. LAW-UKP-134/2006-07/LC-
01032-2008 on 12.2.2008. This was received in R & I Section
on 18.2.2008. It was mis-sent to Lit.VII Section by R & I
Section and on 17.2.2008, the letter was returned to Lit.VII
Section and on 23.2.2008, it was marked to the case worker.
H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A 3. The case worker has submitted the file on 25.2.2008
and on the same day, it was sent to the Deputy Secretary,
·Law Department. The Deputy Secretary has sent the file
to Addi. Law Secretary-II on 4.3.2008. Addi.Law Secretary-
. · II has sent the file to Secretary; Law Department on I
1--
B f 11.3.2008 with a· note to prefer an appeal. The Law r
Secretary, law Department has sent the file to the Advisor
to Governor on the same day. On 16.3.2008 Advisor to
Governor has approved and the file was sent to Deputy
Secretary on 18.3.2008 with an instruction to prefer an
c ·appeal· to this Hon'ble Court. The file was sent -to. the
Section on 20.3.2008 to issue the Government Order for
preferring an· appeal. The file was marked to the case
·worker on 24.3.2008 and a draft Government Order was
submitted on 26.3.2008: The draft was approved on the
same day and was typed 'on the same day. Fair copy of
D
the Government was signed on 28.3.2008 and was issued
on the same day.
4. Requisition was given to C & M Section on 8.4.2008 to
secure file. The file was issued on 8.4.2008. The office
E has written a letter to the concerned authority for want of
certified copy and delay note on 8.4:2008. Then entire file
was put up to Administrative Officer for obtaining allotment
of Government Advocate and the same was returned to
/Section on 3.4.2008 and accordingly file was handed over
F· tO Government Advocate immediately for drafting Special
Leave Petition. · ·
5. After going through the papers and discussions with
departm~ntal officers, the Government Advocate has
drafted 'the Special Leave petition and list of dates and
G sent back the file to Supreme Court Se<?tion on 30.5.2008.
The already called delay note was not received till
30.5.2008, a reminder letter was also sent on 31.5.2008
to secure.delay note and, the said delay note was received
on 7.6.2008 and once again file was put up to Government
H
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, U.K.PROJECT. 887
V. MAHABOOB & ANR. [R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.]
..;,. r Advocate for drafting I.A. for condonation of delay on the A
same day. The Government Advocate drafted the said I.A.
for condonation of delay and sent back the file to Supreme
Court section on 10.6.2008 for further process.
6. And further, an intimation has been given to the litigation
conducting officer on 11.6.2008 for swearing necessary B
affidavits. In the mean while necessary papers given to
typing and got Xeroxed in requisite number of copies
'fl·
immediately. The litigation conducting officer came to
Bangalore and sworn the affidavit in the third week of
June, 2008 and further after setting all the papers pertains c
Special Leave Petition and proper arrangements have
been made to send Special Leave petition to legal cell at
New Delhi for filing before Supreme Court immediately.
7. The delay if any is not an intentional one. It is due to the
D
administrative procedure and heavy work in the Law
Department. Hence, it is requested to condone the delay
caused."
We have already referred to the result of so many
consult~tions, legal opinions, discussion, and drafting sessions. E
When compared to the usual explanations offered by .state
Governments for delays, we should say that the delay is less
~
than normal and explanation is more detailed than what is usually
given. By the applicable standards, the delay has to be
condoned. F
6. More than half the number of SLPs filed in the 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 condoned keeping in view, the
administrative snarls and bottlenecks, governmental procedures G
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. Delays in filing, in virtually every SLP by
the government/s, make a mockery of the provision relating to
limitation and the meaning of 'sufficient cause'.. H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A Plight of land losers "I "'-
7. We may now advert to the facts of this· case. The
acquisition. is of the year 1990. The extent of land acquired is 1
acre 13 guntas. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of
Rs.4,000/- per acre which is about nine paise per sq.ft. Not much
B argument is needed to show that the compensation was very
low. The total compensation as per the award of the LAO made
in 1991, was Rs.5,300/- (excluding statutory additions). Having
..,
lost his land, and consequently, the means oflivelihood, the land
loser had to engage· a lawyer and fight for a reasonable
c compensation by sC'eking reference to the court. The reference
court determined the compensation as Rs.30,420/- per acre
on 10.3.2005. This-means an increase of about Rs.35,000 in
compensation (plus statutory additions) for the acquired land.
But the land loser was not given this amount. The State
D Government files'a first appeal, then a second appeal and then
a SLP. The result is except the paltry amount which he must
have received when the LAO made the award, the land loser
has not received any compensation for nearly 17 years and had
to fight the litigation beforP. three courts for a total compensation
E of Rs.40000/- (excluding statutory benefits). Apart from the fact
that the land loser would have spent virtually the entire amount
for litigation, whatever amount he may ultimately receive will not
get him even one-fourth or one-fifth of the extent of land which
he lost ·by acquisition. Unless the process of acquisition gives "
F him a reasonable compensation either at the time of or
immediately after the dispossession, the compensation will be
a mirage for most land losers.
8. Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to
lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon
G the acquired.land. The land is taken purporteuly in accordance
with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings. The Collector
(LAO} is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all
relevant circumstances relating to. market value into account.
To safeguard the interests of the land loser, the'Act requires the
H Collector to make the award before the land owner is
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, U.KPROJECT. 889
V. MAHABOOB & ANR. [R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.]-

• ~ dispossessed. The intention is that the land loser will A
immediately be able to draw compensation and purchase some
other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his
livelihood. But in practice the Collectors (LAOs) seldom make
reasonable offers. They tend to err on ·the 'safer' side and
invariably assess very low compensation. Such meager awards B
force the land loser to seek reference to civil court for increase
in compensation in regard to almost every award made by the
LAO. In fact, many a time, even the reference courts are
conservative in estimating the market value and it requires
further appeals by the land loser to the High Court and Supreme c
Court to get just compensation for the land. We can take judicial
notice of the fact that in several States the awards of the reference
court or the judgments of the High Court and this Court
increasing the compensation, are not complied with and the
land losers are again driven to courts to initiate time consuming D
execution process (which also involves considerable expense
by way of lawyers fee) to recover what is justly due. Resultantly
the land losers seldom get a substantial portion of proper
compensation for their land in one lump sum immediately after
the acquisition. The effect may be highlighted by the following
illustration: E
A farmer owns 3 acres of land in a village, which .is his
sole means of livelihood. The land is acquired for some
project in the year 1990. The true market value of the land
was around Rs.1,50,000/- per acre in 1990. If he got the F
said price, that is, Rs.4,50,000/- with solatium, additional
amount and interest in the year 1991, he has a reasonable
opportunity of purchasing some alternative land, so that
he can eke out his livelihood and continue to live with
. dignity. But this rarely happens in practice. The final G
notification is made in 1992 and the LAO makes an award
in the year 1993 offering Rs.50,000/- per acre. So the
land loser is constrained to seek a reference to the court.
The reference court takes three to four years to decide the
reference and increases the compensation to Rs.one lakh
H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A per acre in the year 1996. The increased amount is
deposited in 1997-1998. The land loser is constrained to
file a further appeal to the High Court and the High Court
takes another three to four years and increases the
compensation to Rs.1.5 lakh per acre in the year 2000
B and such increase is deposited in the year 2001-02. That
is, the loser ·is forced to fight at least in two courts to get
the compensation commensurate with the market value of
Rs.1.5 lakhs per acre. To add to his woes, wheri the
reference court or the High Court increases the
c compensation, the government does not pay the increased
amount immediately and drives him to execution
proceedings also. This means that the land owner gets
compensation piecemeal, that is Rs.50,000/- per acre in
1993, another Rs.50,000/· per acre in 1997-98, and
D . another Rs:50,000/- per acre in 2001-02. At every stage
h~0 has to incur expenses for litigation. As he does·not.get
the full compensation in one lump sum, he is not in a
position to purchase an alternative land. When the land is
acquired, he loses his means of. livelihood, as he knows
no other type of work. The result is, he is forced to spend
E the compensation received in piecemeal, on sustenance
of his family when he fights the legal battles for increasing
the compensation and for recovering the increases
granted, by levying exec·ution. The result is that whatever
compef"!sation is received piecemeal, gets spent for the
F sustenance of the family, and litigation cost during the
course of prolonged litigation. At the end of the legal battle,
he is hardly left with any money to purchase, alte~native
land and by then the prices of land would have also
increased manifold, making it impossible to purchase even
G a .fraction of the land which he originally possessed.
Illiteracy, ignorance, and lack of counselling add to his
woes and the piecemeal compensation is dissipated
leaving him with neither land, nor money to buy aiternative
· 1and, nor any means of livelihood. In short, he is stripped
H of his land and livelihood.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, U.K.PROJECT. 891

. ~
V. MAHABOOB & ANR. [R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.]

9. When large areas are acquired, unless some effort is A
made by all the wings of government to ensure prompt payment
of realistic compensation with appropriate rehabilitation
measures, land acquisitions lead to great tragedy and ruination
of poor families. We may, at t_he risk of stating the obvious, refer
to the following steps if taken within the frame work of existing B
laws may provide considerable succour to the land loser: (a)
Collector/LAO should offer compensation which is reasonable
and realistic and very near to value.· (b) Whenever courts
increase· tne compensation, instead of mechanically filing
appeals in all cases, or delaying payments without apparent c
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) Avenues
of rehabilitation by way of employment, housing, investment
D
opportunities, identification of alternative lands, may be explored
and implemented. When large tracts of lands belonging to
several land owners are acquired by development authorities
for formation ofresidential or commercial layouts, schemes may
be formulated which contemplate 25% to 30% of the land area
being used for roads amenities and open spaces, and utilize E
the remaining area which is developed into plots, by selling
about one-third by auction to recover the development cost, by
allotting about one-third to poor or needy at cost price, and by
releasing/allotting about one-third area to the land losers whose
lands were acquired. Some development authorities have F
reduced land acquisition litigation considerably either by
entering into negotiated consent awards or formulating schemes
for sharing the developed area with the land losers. Others may
emulate them with appropriate modifications.
G
-t 10. We are not unaware of the fact that in some cases, the
awards of courts is high. The main reason therefor is the failure
on the part of Collectors/LAOs/Beneficiaries of acquisition, to
conduct the cases before the reference court properly. They
either fail to cross-examine the claimant's witnesses or fail to
H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

.A lead evidence to rebut the high claims. An attempt is belatedly
made.to set right the matter by filing appeals.
11. It is not our intention to discourage the governments
or the beneficiaries of acquisition from filing appeals where high
compensation or unreasonable awards are made by courts. Nor
8 is our intention to suggest policy or interfere with existing policy.
Our endeavour is only to draw attention to the plight of many
land losers and to some aspects of land acquisition litigation,
.so that urgently needed remedial measures can be initiated for ·•
the benefit of land losers for whom acquisition means deprivation ''
C of the means of livelihood. Unless there is a concerted effort by
the governments/beneficiaries of acquisition/ collectors/courts
to give effect to the legislative intent of prompt disbursement of
adequate compensation, the suffering and disillusionment will
continue.
D
Conclusion
I

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there
was delay in seeking reference and therefore the reference ought
to have been rejected. Such a ground was not urged either
E before the reference court, or the first appellate court or before
the High Court or even in the SLP. In the circumstances, we
cannot countenance such a contention.
13. Resultantly, we condone the delay, but dismiss the SLP
as having no merit. We may add that we find no specific fault
F with the Advocate-on-record in this case. We have merely taken
the opportunity to advert to several general shortcomings in filing
of special leave petitions, with the hope bringing changes for
the better.

R.P. Special leave petition dismissed.