Under Article 142 of the Constitution, can the Supreme Court extend a higher rate of compensation already fixed for land under the same acquisition notification to claimants proceeding under a separate reference?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.4(1) — Constitution of India — Art. 142 — Parity of compensation — Delay —
Constitution of India — Art. 142 — Parity across same notification —
Held: Compensation for land under the same Notification had already been fixed at Rs. 6,50,000 per acre and approved by this Court. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 142, that rate is extended to the Appellants despite the abnormal delay in their own proceedings. (¶10)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Interest — Claimant's own delay excluded —
Held further: No interest is payable for the 4,427 days of the Appellants' own delay. Civil Appeals allowed on that basis. (¶11, 12)
Under Article 142 of the Constitution, can the Supreme Court extend a higher rate of compensation already fixed for land under the same acquisition notification to claimants proceeding under a separate reference?
Yes. Where the same Notification had already yielded a higher compensation rate in a parallel proceeding that this Court had approved, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 to extend that same rate to the appellants, notwithstanding the abnormal delay in their own proceedings. [¶10]
Does extending parity of compensation under Article 142 also entitle claimants to interest for the period of their own delay in pursuing the claim?
No. The Court held that the appellants were not entitled to interest for the 4,427 days of delay attributable to their own conduct, even while extending them the enhanced principal rate of compensation. [¶11]
What did the Supreme Court finally decide in this land acquisition compensation dispute?
The Civil Appeals were allowed, extending to the appellants the Rs. 6,50,000 per acre compensation with statutory benefits already fixed for the same Notification, but without interest for their own 4,427 days of delay. [¶12]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“5. The grievance of the Appellants hinges on the compensation awarded for the same Notification dated 11.02.1999 in a different set of proceedings. In MFA No. 21191 of 2010, the compensation for the lands covered by the same Notification was determined at Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre by following the enhancement vide Judgment of the High Court dated 12.12.2012. This Court in Ravindra and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Bagalkot,1 approved the compensation for the acquired lands at Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre.”
“9. We have perused the record and noticed that the Appellants were agriculturists, and the agricultural land was acquired through the subject Notification.”
“10. The delay is abnormal. The reasons recorded by the High Court for not entertaining the Review are available in the facts and circumstances of the case. But the fact of the matter is that, under the very same Notification, the compensation has been fixed at Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre, with statutory benefits. In the circumstances of this case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we extend the compensation determined by this Court in Ravindra (supra) to the Appellants as well. Consequently, the Appellants are entitled to Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre, with statutory benefits.”
“11. The Appellants are not entitled to interest for the period from the date of the Reference Court's Judgment, i.e., 28.03.2001, to the date of filing the subject MFA before the High Court of Karnataka in 2008, and from the date of disposal of the subject MFA by the High Court on 24.06.2011 to the refiling of the SLPs before this Court, i.e., 27.01.2017, aggregating to 4,427 days. 3”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
The delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is condoned.
Leave granted.
On 11.02.1999, the Respondents issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) proposing to acquire an extent of 7 Acres 12 Guntas in Survey No. 161/2 of Mudhol Village, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District, Karnataka. The acquisition was for the purpose of accommodating displaced families under a project. On 04.01.2000, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award, and aggrieved by the determination of compensation, the Appellants sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Act in LAC No. 1802 of 2000 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1 Jamkhandi. On 27.03.2001, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre.
The Appellants filed MFA No. 20936 of 2008 before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad. On 23.06.2011, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre.
The grievance of the Appellants hinges on the compensation awarded for the same Notification dated 11.02.1999 in a different set of proceedings. In MFA No. 21191 of 2010, the compensation for the lands covered by the same Notification was determined at Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre by following the enhancement vide Judgment of the High Court dated 12.12.2012. This Court in Ravindra and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Bagalkot,1 approved the compensation for the acquired lands at Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre.
The Appellants filed Review Petition No. 100113 of 2014 before the High Court, and through Order dated 07.09.2015, the Review was dismissed.
Hence, the Civil Appeals, seeking parity in compensation with Ravindra (supra), arising out of lands covered by the same Notification dated 11.02.1999.
The Respondents do not dispute the dates and details adverted to above. The objections of the Respondents are that the Appellants are by no measure diligent in pursuing the claim for enhancement of compensation. Further, it is argued that for the period of delay, the Appellants are not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation. According to Court when the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre) till the filing of the MFA before the High Court of Karnataka in the year 2008, i.e., 2,383 days; and (ii) from 24.06.2011 (23.06.2011 being the date of the Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the MFA No. 20936 of 2008) till the refiling of this Special Leave Petitions on 27.01.2017, i.e., 2,044 days.
We have perused the record and noticed that the Appellants were agriculturists, and the agricultural land was acquired through the subject Notification.
The delay is abnormal. The reasons recorded by the High Court for not entertaining the Review are available in the facts and circumstances of the case. But the fact of the matter is that, under the very same Notification, the compensation has been fixed at Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre, with statutory benefits. In the circumstances of this case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we extend the compensation determined by this Court in Ravindra (supra) to the Appellants as well. Consequently, the Appellants are entitled to Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre, with statutory benefits.
The Appellants are not entitled to interest for the period from the date of the Reference Court's Judgment, i.e., 28.03.2001, to the date of filing the subject MFA before the High Court of Karnataka in 2008, and from the date of disposal of the subject MFA by the High Court on 24.06.2011 to the refiling of the SLPs before this Court, i.e., 27.01.2017, aggregating to 4,427 days. 3
Civil Appeals are allowed as indicated above.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly. ...……….…………………J. [S.V.N. BHATTI] ....…………………………J. [N.V. ANJARIA] New Delhi; August 7, 2026. 4
Is non-payment of a part of the sale price a ground for cancellation of a registered Sale Deed once title has passed?
2020 INSC 450 · Supreme Court of India
Does the burden to prove that property is joint property of a Hindu Undivided Family lie on the person who alleges it?
2020 INSC 327 · Supreme Court of India
Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?
CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy