Shripal vs Karnataka Neravari Nigam Ltd.
Background
The appellants' irrigated agricultural lands were acquired in 2007 for construction of canals under the Hippargi Barrage project. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded Rs.1,31,263 per acre, which the Reference Court enhanced to Rs.3,00,000 per acre. On further appeal, the appellants argued that landowners in a similar, related acquisition (2004-2005 notification, for the same kind of irrigated land) had been awarded Rs.3,69,000 per acre and this had been upheld even by the Supreme Court, while another batch of owners under a 2009 notification for the same project had received Rs.5,00,000 per acre.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that the respondent-beneficiary itself had agreed to the Rs.3,69,000 per acre rate (with 5% annual escalation) for the 2004-2005 notification, while the 2009 notification lands had been valued even higher at Rs.5,00,000 per acre. Since the appellants' land was acquired in 2007, in between these two reference points, the Court held that a fair and proportionate market value would be Rs.4,50,000 per acre, modifying the High Court's 2018 order accordingly, along with all statutory benefits, interest and costs. However, it upheld the High Court's separate finding denying interest for the period of delay in filing cross-objections. The Court expressly clarified that this order was passed on the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a binding precedent for other land acquisition matters.
Lesson Learnt
When fixing compensation for compulsorily acquired land, courts often use a straightforward interpolation between established, comparable valuations for similar land acquired shortly before and after the disputed acquisition date, but such fact-specific compensation orders are typically not meant to set a general precedent for other cases.