The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malaprabha Dam Project Vs. Madivalappa
Basalingappa Melavanki  INSC 391 (16 August 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J) Hansaria B.L. (J)
1995 SCC (5) 592 1995 SCALE (5)66
APPEAL NO. OF 1995 7871 OF 1995 [Arising out of SLP [C] No. 8589 of 1989 ]
O R D
Court of Civil Judge in L.A.C. Nos. 263 and batch by award and decree dated 14th December, 1981 enhanced the compensation
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs. 3,000/- per acre to Rs.
15,000/- per acre. On appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act [for
short, 'the Act'] the IInd Additional District Judge, Belgaum by his common judgment dated 24th August, 1983 confirmed the same. The High Court
by the impugned order dated 29th January, 1988 in Miscellaneous Second Appeal
No. 44 of 1985 and batch held that in determining compensation on the basis of
the annual yield application of 15 years multiplier would be illegal, as held
in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere vs. P. Veerabhadarappa etc. etc.
[AIR 1984 SC 774 ]. As for this decision, appropriate multiplier is 10. This
view was reiterated in a number of decisions.
the learned Judge declined to interfere with the order on the ground that the
land in acquisition in this case was only of an extent of 38 gunthas and it was
held that "it is hardly appropriate to interfere with the award
notwithstanding the discernible blemish pointed out by the learned Government
Pleader". The learned Judge also applied the provisions of Sections 23
(1-A); 23  and 28 of the Act as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984 holding
that it would be subject to the result in Bhag Singh & Ors. vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh [(1985) 2 SCC 737 ].
on merits, the learned Judge was not inclined to interfere with the
determination of compensation applying 15 years multiplier, the land in
question being a small extent of land, on facts of this case, we are also not
inclined to upset the wrong application of law. However, it would not operate
as a precedent to any future case or other cases arising from the same
notification. All cases need to be decided applying only 10 years multiplier.
However, the claimants are not entitled to the benefits under the Amendment Act
68 of 1984. It is settled law that if the claim is pending before the reference
Court on or after coming into force of the Amendment Act., viz., September 24, 1984, the Amendment Act gets attracted
for pending claims during that interregnum. Since the award of the Reference
Court is of December 14, 1981, i.e., much prior to the date when the Land
Acquisition Amendment Bill was introduced, the claimants are not entitled to 30
per cent solatium on the enhanced compensation, additional amount @ 12 per cent
per annum of the enhanced compensation from the date of award or taking over
possession whichever is earlier and interest as provided in the proviso to
Section 28 of the Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984, i.e., 9 per cent for one
year and 15 per cent thereafter from the date of taking over possession till
date of deposit or payment whichever is earlier. But the respondent-claimants
are entitled to 15 per cent solatium on the enhanced compensation and 5 per
cent interest per annum on the enhanced compensation as amended by the local
Act, from the date of taking over possession till the date of deposit or
payment, whichever is earlier.
appeals are accordingly allowed. No. costs.