THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KALINADAI (HYDRO-ELECTRIC) PROJECT, DANDALI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICTversusVASANT GUNDU BALE
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 656
- Decided
- 31 October 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A uniform multiplier of 10 (or at most 12) applies in Karnataka, and the reference court’s award of Rs 15,520 per acre stands as final and cannot be reduced.
Summary
The State acquired six acres of land for a hydro‑electric project under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs 15,520 per acre. The High Court, applying a multiplier of 15 to the rental value, raised the amount to Rs 18,000 per acre. The State appealed by special leave, contending that the multiplier was excessive and that the reference court’s award was not final. The Supreme Court held that a uniform multiplier of 10 (or at most 12) is applicable in Karnataka, so the compensation could not exceed Rs 14,000 per acre, and that because the State had not appealed the reference court’s award under s.26, that award became final. Consequently, the Court upheld the reference court’s award of Rs 15,520 per acre with a 15 % solatium and 15 % interest, allowing the appeal but without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the multiplier of 15 applied by the High Court is permissible under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the State can appeal the reference court’s award under s.26 after the High Court’s order.
- What is the correct uniform multiplier rate for compensation in Karnataka.
- Whether the Supreme Court can reduce compensation awarded by the reference court.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 26, s. 4(1), s. 54
Subjects
Judgment
A THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KALINADAI
(HYDRO-ELECTRIC) PROJECT, DANDALI, UTTAR KANNADA
DISTRICT
v.
VASANT GUNDU BALE
B
OCTOBER 31,1995
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
c
Ss.4(1) and JC-Acquisition of land---Compensation---Computation
of-Multiplier-Order of High Cowt enhancing compensation by applying
multiplier of 15-Set aside and award of reference Court upheld with solatium
at the rate of 15% and 15% interest on enhanced compensation.
D Certain lands of the respondent-land-owner were acquired under
s.4(1) of Land Acquistion Act, 1894 for Hydro Electric Project. The com-
pensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced by the
reference Court to Rs. 15,520 per acre. On land owner's further appeal,
the High Court, applying the multiplier of 15 to the rental value of the
E land, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 18,000 per acre. Aggrieved, the
State filed the appeal by special leave.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : The uniform rate of multiplier of 10 is being applied for the
F lands acquired even in the State of Karnataka. Even acceding the Multi-
plier of 12 the claimant cannot get more than Rs. 14,000 per acre. Since
the State had not filed any appeal against the enhanced compensation, the
amount awarded by the reference Court had become final. Therefore, this
Court cannot interfere with and reduce the compensation less than the
G amount awarded by the Civil Court. [615-G·H, 616-A]
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangree v. P. Veerabhadarappa
and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 120; referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3133 of
H 1982.
614
SPL LAND ACQN. OFFICER v. V.G. BALE 615
From the .Judgment and Order dated 22.l.82 of the Karnataka High A
Courl in M.F.A. No. 27 of 1979.
M. Vecrappa and K.H. Nobin Singh for the Appellant.
R.S. Hedge and K.R. Nagaraja [or lhe Respondent.·
B
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, 'the Act') acquiring an extent of six acres 21 Gunthas of land
for Hydro Electric Project was published on Augost 12, 1975. The Land C
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at various rates for wet land,
dry land, garden land and phot-kharab land. On reference under section
18, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.
15,520 per acre. On appeal under Section 54, the High Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs.18,000 per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the State
Government has filed this appeal by special leave. D
Sri Veerappa, the learned counsel for the Slate, has contended that
the High Court committed grave error of law in recording a finding that
lands were possessed of potential value for building purposes. We find no
force in the contention. It is seen that when 7,800 tenaments were con-
structed in the project area, it would be clear that a township had come E
into existence. It is an admitted fact that the land under acquisition is
about the township. It is also an admitted fact that in Ext. A-12 sanction
was obtained on September 13, 1973 for conversion of agricultural lands
into urban lands of the layout and sale of plots which could not take place
due to the fact that mud was dumped on this land. Consequently, the F
sanction came to be cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner. Be that as
it may, the High Court on the basis of the rental value had determined
compensation at the rate of Rs. 1200 per acre applying the multiplier of 15
and "rrived at the net income at Rs. 18,000 per acre. It is now settled law
that the uniform rate of multiplier of 10 is being applied for the lands G
acquired even in the State of Karnataka. Even acceding the multiplier of
12 as held by this Court in Special Land Acquisition .Officer, Davangree v.
P. Vecrabhadarappa and 01:i, (1984] 2 SCC 120, the claimant cannot get
more than Rs. 14,000 per acre. Since the State had not filed the appeal
against tb.e enhanced compensation under Section 26, of the Act, amount
awarded by the Reference Court had become final. Therefore, this Court H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A cannot interfere with and reduce the compensation less than the amount
awarded by the Civil Court. The enhanced compensation stands upheld at
the rate of Rs. 15,520 per acre \\;th solatium at the rate of 15% and 15%
interest on the enhanced compensation.
The appeal is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without
B costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
,)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.