SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER· v. KARIGOV'llDA & ORS.

8 68. At this stage; we may notice the proceedings of the SLAO, where he submitted the draft compensation award of the acquired land to the Government for its approval in accordance with law. As per clause 6 of this Report, he had visited and inspected the lands in the presence of various officers at Village Sanaba, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Karnataka which were flooded by the backwaters of the river. Even the claimants were present and they had prayed for compensation of Rs. 60,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs. 90,640/- per acre for garden land. But they did not produce any document before the said authority for determining the compensation for the acquired land. The Report reads as under

"In this regard, as per confirmation letter of the guidance value at the office of the Sub-Registrar, E Pandavapura, the guidance value of the dry land during the period 1998-99 to 2001-02 a;e as follows :

Years Per Acre of dry land 1999-2000 Rs. 36,000-00 F 2000-2001 Rs. 36,000-00 2001-2002 Rs. 38.000-00 3 years Rs. 1, 10,000-00 Average 1, 10,000 = 36,666.66 or 36,667-00 G Per Gunta Rs. 916.68 or Rs. 917/-

While fixation of the compensation for the dry land, it is Rs. 37,200/- per acre of dry land and Rs. 930/- per gunta as per the statement of sale transaction at the office of the Sub Registrar, Pandavapura Taluk and as per the

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. 215 KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] guidance value it is observed to be Rs. 37,200/- per acre and Rs. 930/- per guntas of land. ·' ,

While fixation of compensation amount to the garden lands, since there are no sale transactions of the garden lands in Sanaba Village, the statement of the same are not available for consideration at the office of the Sub- Reg istrar, Pandavapura. For the said reason, the statement of the sale transactions of the garden lands within the Hobli Circle of the said village is taken as base. As such, the details of the transactions are as under : c SI Name of the Sy. Nature Extent Sale R.No. No Village No. of cons id- & land eration date

01 Mahadevapura 84/1 Garden 0-10 G Rs.26000 1318/99-00 D (Melukote land 4-10-99 Hobli)

04 Vaddara halli 36/4 Garden 0-09 Rs.30000 199/01-02 F (Kasaba land 20-4-00 Hobli) 36/2 Garden 0-03 land 3613 Garden 0-02 land G

05 Vaddara halli 51/7 Garden 0-17Y, Rs.37000 1028/01-02 (Kasaba land 26-06-01 Hobli) Total 01-29 y. 1,57,500 H

216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 5 S.C.R.

. Total amount of transaction : Rs. 1,57,500/- P~r Acre 1.57.500 x 40 = 90647-48 or 90640-00 B 69.5 Per gunta 2266-18 or 2266-00 Per Acre Rs. 90,640/- and per gunta Rs. 2266/-

C In the same matter, the guidance value of the garden lands available at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pandavapura is examined and the details are as under : Year Per Acre of garden land

D 1999-2000 Rs. 85,000-00 2000-2001 Rs. 85,000-00 2001-2002 Rs. 90.000-00 Rs. 2.60.000-00

Per Acre = 2.60.000 = Rs. 86,666.67 E 3 or Rs. 86,667 and

Per gunta Rs. 2167/- While fixation of the compensation amount for the garden lands, finally, the statements of the sale transactions and the guidance value details were made in comparison. AS such, the statements of sale transactions as base is considered to be just and hence per acre of garden land Rs. 90,640/- ·and per gunta as Rs. 2,266/- is decided and fixed.

For the amount of compensation fixed i.e. Rs. 37,200/- per acre of dry land and Rs. 90,640/- per acre of garden land, as statement shall be prepared and for the said amount a legislative compensation at the rate of 30% H

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. 217 KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] without interest shall be paid" A

69Copy pinpoint69. The above compensation was computed by the SLAO on the basis of the sale instances of the villages falling within the same Circle as well as on the basis of the guidance value maintained in the Register of the Sub-Registrar of the concerned villages. From the Report, it is evident that both these villages Sanaba and Pandavapura are located in the same Circle and are practically part of the larger revenue estate. It was not in dispute before us that primarily all these lands were being- used for cultivating mulberry crop which is the sole agricultural activity. The court has to keep in mind a very pertinent equitable principle while awarding compensation, i.e the court should grant just and fair market value of the land at the time of the acquisition while ensuring that there is no undue enrichment. These are compulsive acquisitions but the guiding factor for the court is sale instances of a willing seller and a D willing purchaser while determining the compensation payable. To award fair compensation is the obligation of the State and depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts may enhance the compensation within the framework of law. The-Sale instances referred to by the Collector in his report are from the same villages or nearby villages or adjacent villages which are a part of the same Circle and where the land can easily said to be comparable as the entire chunk of the land was being used for raising mulberry crop and was acquired for common purpose, that is, the lands were submerged in the water coming from the Hemavathi Dam.

70Copy pinpoint70. This Court in the case of Shaji Kuriakose (supra) held - that out of the three afore stated methods, the courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation of land is preferred than the other methods such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales methods of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the H

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R.

A market value of the acquired ·land which· a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In Kantaben Manibhai Amin & Anr. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda [AIR 1990 SC 103] this Court B also stated that latest sale instance closer to the date of notification for acquisition of the land should be taken into consideration. I ,

71Copy pinpoint71. It is also an accepted judicial norm that the claimants can be given the benefit of awarding compensation on the basis of the genuine sale instance containing the highest rate, provided it has been proved in accordance with law and is a comparable instance. Such sale instance must satisfy all the requirements and pre-requisite stated in the Act. It should be a bonafide transaction and should also be in reasonable proximity to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Since the SLAO had referred to the four sale instances which were produced before him and being part of the reference file, they were duly noticed by the Reference Court as well as by the High Court. But the Courts held that it was not appropriate to apply sales statistics method in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the claimants produced no sale instances. In our view, these sale instances can be taken into consideration by the Court and benefit of the highest instance can be granted to the claimants in accordance with law in fixing the market value of the acquired land. Whatever benefit accrues to the claimants from the record produced and proved by the respondents, cannot be denied to them just because they have not produced evidence by way of sale instances.

72Copy pinpoint72. The afore noticed sale instances which were taken into consideration by the SLAO, and which were part of the reference file show that there was an increasing trend in the sale price of the land in these villages as 10 guntas of garden land was sold in Mahadevpura (Melukote Hobli) for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- on 04.10.1999 while 9 guntas of garden land was H

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISIT!ON OFFICER v. 219 KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] sold in Vadara Halli (Kasaba Hobli) for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- A on 20.04.2000. Similarly, 18 guntas of garden land was sold in Hosahalli (Chinkurali Hobli) for a sum of Rs. 37,500/- on 06.12.1999 and 10 guntas of garden land was sold in Oinkakaval (Chinkurali Hobli) for a sum of Rs. 27,000/- on 29.04.2000, all these sold lands fall in the same circle. Besides B this increasing trend and the fact that all these villages are adjacent villages to each other, the highest price fetched was for the sale instance executed on 26.06.2001 where ~ 7 Yz~ guntas of garden land was sold in village Vaddara Halli (Kasaba Hobli) for a sum of Rs. 37,000/-. The notification under c Section 4 was issued on 04.04.2002 that means that all the sale instances of the adjacent comparable lands are in proximity of time to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The average of sale statistical instances referred above comes out to be Rs. 1,57,500/- for sale of 01 Acre 29 Yz Guntas i.e. 0 90,647.48 per acre. Since the sale instances relied upon are nearly around 1 to 2 Yi years prior to the date of notification, they are relevant considerations and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to an increase at the rate of 15% per annum compounded. E

73Copy pinpoint73. The aforesaid increase, in our view, is justified and equitable - firstly, on the ground that there was increasing trend in the sale price of that land and secondly, the lands acquired were being used by the agriculturists for production of mulberry crops which had a restrictive use in the manufacturing, commercial or industrial activities i.e. feeding the silk worms which are ultimately used for production of silk thread. The court cannot use thi~ admitted restricted use to the disadvantage of the land owners and some benefit should be given to them while balancing the equities in accordance with law. The concept of fair compensation payable for the acquired land is embodied in the Act itself, particularly in view of secondly and fifthly of Section 23 of the Act. In fact, it was stated during the course of arguments by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, the State Government itself has given some H

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R.

A additional compensation to the claimants for mulberry crops which were standing at the time of submerging. We find this stand of the State Government to be reasonable and fair. Thus, giving a 15% compounded increase for 2 % years on the sale ·price of Rs. 1,08,000/- in respect of garden land, the claimants B would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,53,542.50 per "'"re for the wet (ir;igated) land. This can even be examined fivrn another point of view, that is, the sale instance no. 3 where the land in village Dinkakaval (Chinkurali Hobli) garden land of 10 guntas were sold for a sum of Rs. c 27,000/- on 29.04.2000, i.e. approximately 2 years prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This would give the sale price of the surrounding village lands to the acquired land at the rate of 1,08,000/- per acre for the garden land. Giving it a compound increase of 15% for two year it will come to Rs. 1,42,830/- (Rs. 1,08,000/- + 15% on Rs. 1,08,000/- = 0 Rs. 1,24,200/- for the first year; Rs. 1,24,200/- + 15% on Rs. 1,24,200/- = Rs. 1,42,830/- for the second year) and Rs. = 1,42,830/- + 7.5% of Rs. 1,42,830/- Rs. 1,53,542.50 for two · and half years.

E We have two important facts which cannot be ignored by the Court. Firstly, that the claimants, by leading definite evidence have shown on record that the lands in question are not only lands having regular source of irrigation through the backwaters but otherwise are also lands superior fo the other garden lands used for ordinary agricultural activities. The fields in question are being used exclusively for growLng mulberry crops. Mulberry leaves are the only and the specifieCl food for cocoons: In other words, the agricultural purpose for whj9h the fields in questiori are being used is a special purpose and the crop so grown is again used for a specific commercial purpose to which there is no other alternative. In fact, none was stated before us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In all these peculiar facts, it cannot be disputed that some additional benefits have to be provided in favour of the claimantc. In the present cases, the claimants have not only lost their agricultural

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. 221 KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

land but they have also been deprived of seasonal income that was available to them as a result of sale of mulberry leaves. Deprivation of livelihood is a serious consideration. The Court is entitled to apply some kind of reasonable guess work to balance the equities and fix just and fair market value in terms of the parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act. The B SLAO has ignored both these aspects firstly providing of annual increase, and secondly, giving some weightage to the special agricultural purpose and the purpose for which the mulberry crop had to be utilized. The claimants have not proved and produced on record sale instances. They have also not c produced on record any specific evidence to justify the compensation awarded to them by the Reference Court and/ or the High Court. In fact, there is hardly any evidence, much less a cogent and impeccable evidence to support the increase on the basis of net income capitalization method. It is a settled D rudiment of law that the Court, in given facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the potentiality and utility of the land acquired, can award higher compensation to ensure that injustice is not done to the claimants and they are not deprived of their property without grant of fair compensation. E Reference, in this regard, can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, A. P. v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao [(2007) 3 SCC 526]. While adopting the average sale method as the formula for awarding compensation to the claimants, we are also of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the land is being compulsorily acquired, the claimants should be awarded a higher compensation. The compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre for the wet land and at the rate of Rs. 1,53,400/- per acre for the dry land would be just and fair compensation and would do complete justice between the parties. This element of increase had not been added by the SLAO which ought to have been done. As far as claimants are concerned, they have not produced and proved any sale instance and as already noticed, they have not H

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 5 S.C.R.

A even brought on record any specific evidence to justify their claims relatable to and based upon net income capitalization method. In fact, we do not hesitate in observing that claimants have faile'd to discharge their onus fully and satisfactorily.

74Copy pinpoint74. The claimants have proceeded on the assumption that 8 they will be entitled to get compensation, by treating the silk cocoons reared by them as the yield from the land and by capitalizing the value of the silk cocoons. We have already held that the determination of the market value by capitalization of yield method will depend upon the agricultural yield, that is, value of agricultural produce less expenditure for growing them, and not with reference to a further sericultural activity by using the agricultural produce. Therefore, what could be capitalized for determination of market value was the value of mulberry leaves used for sericulture and not the value of silk cocoons produ~ed by feeding such mulberry leaves to the silkworr:ns. The yield of silk cocoons is the result of further human effort and industry, value of which obviously cannot be capitalized for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the agricultural land. ,,. The evidence discloses that the acquired lands were used for growing mulberry crop which was being harvested to provide feed for the silkworms by way of sericulture. Therefore, one way of arriving at the market value is to provide appropriate addition for the mulberry cultivation to the value arrived at for the land without mulberry, cultiv(ltion. The second method is instead of F . taking the valua;-Of.. cocoons for the purpose of capitalization, take a part thereof, being the value of the mulberry crop input and capitalize the same. The land in question is special garden lands being used only for growing mulberry crop.

75Copy pinpoint75. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, it will also be just and fair to adopt some liberal approach with some element of guess work to provide the claimants with just and fair market value of the !arid in question. It must be remembered that, the entire land including village Sanaba and all other villages was acquired for the purpose of submerging H

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. 223 KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] the lands because of the water coming from the Hemavathi A Dam. In view of the cumulative discussion referred to above, we are of the considered view that it will be just, fair, equitable and in consonance with Sections 23 and 24 of the Act that the market value of the land as on 04.04.2002 can safely be taken as Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre in the case of garden land and, B applying the accepted principle of reducing the said compensation in the case of dry lands by one third, the rate will be Rs.1,53,400/- per acre in the case of dry land keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence on record. c Claim in regard to interest payable on taking of possession

76Copy pinpoint76. The claimants while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Satinder Singh & Ors. v. Umrao Singh and Anrs. [AIR D 1961 SC 908) and some other judgments of the High Court had claimed that they are entitled to receive interest from the date when their lands were submerged in the year 1993 onwards and not from the date of the Notification i.e ..4th April,

2002. It was contended that since they had lost possession and interest being payable in lieu of possession, they would be entitled to receive interest from those dates i.e. from 1993, and not from the date the Land Acquisition Collector had granted, i.e. 4th April, 2002. The Reference Court as well as the High Court accepted this contention while referring to the judgments of the Executive Engineer, Dhenke.nal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa & Ors. v. N. C. Budharaj (deceased) by Lrs. & Ors., ((2001) 2 SCC 721 ] and Satinder Singh (Supra), granted the relief to the claimants as prayed.

77Copy pinpoint77. The reliance placed by the respondents upon the judgment of N. C. Budharaj (supra), was with reference to the scope and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act. That case related to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and with reference to the relevant sections of the Interest H

- 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R.

i . ,r. 1ddU;· i"•·'., ·• .. , ... .. .. .. ' A Act, 1839, where t_his Court has held that provisiqns of t~.e,. Act couid be made applicable to arbitration as there was n6thing tb 'indicate 'tnat its application was· restricted. Thus, it is not necessary for us to deliberate on the judgment of N.C. ·audharaj case (supra) any further. Further, even the reliance placed upon B Satinder Singh case (supra) is not of much help to the respondents. This judgment relates to the period, prior to intrbductit:ih and/or amendment of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 34 of the Acti.e. on 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants, that it is now C a well settled proposition of law that Reference Court cannot grant interest for any period prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. As such, possession even if taken or assumed to have oeen taken earlier would, dehor the provisions of the Act and, therefore, was improper. Thus, the possession has to be legal and within the framework 0 of law. The provision of the Act clearly lays down the procedure required to be followed while taking possession of the acquired land. The words "from the date on which he took the pos_session of the land" occurring in Section 20 would mean lawful taking of possession. The case of Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. E v. State of Gujarat [(1991) 1 SCC 262], also stated the principle that, interest on the compensation amount could be awarded under Section 34 of the Act, with effect from the date of taking possession. However, this controversy need not detain us any further, as the three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of F R.L. Jain (0) by Lrs. v. DOA & Ors. [2{)04 (4) SCC 79] I COnSidered all these aspects Of the matter and held aS ,under I :- . "

G 15. Similar view has been taken in a recent decision by a Bench of two Judges in Lila Ghosh v. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 9 sec 337 anrl the reasons given there in para 16 of the Report are being reproduced below:

17. Shri Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has also placed strong reliance on Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh F (supra) wherein the question of payment of interest in the matter of award of compensation was considered by this Court. In this case the initial notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 b,ut the proceedings for acquisition were completed under East G Punjab Act 48 of 1948. The High Court negatived the claim for interest on the ground that the 1948 Act made no provision for award of interest. After. quoting with approval the following observations of the Privy Council in Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. New Brunswick H

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 5 S.C.R.

A El~ctric Power Commission, reported in AIR 1928 PC 287.

"upon the expropriation of land under statutory power, whether for the purpose of private gain or of good to the · public at large, the owner is entitled to interest upon the B principal sum ayvarded from the date when possession was taken, unless thEt-.statute clearly shows a contrary intention" ·

the Bench held as under: c .. ": .. when a claim for payment of interest is made by a person whose immovable property has been acquired compulsorily he is not making claim for damages properly or technically so-called; he is basing his claim on the D general rule that if he is deprived of his land he should be put in possession of compensation immediately; if not, in lieu of possession taken by compulsory acquisition interest should be paid to him on the said amount of compensation". E 17.1. The normal rule, therefore, is that if on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his property he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith he would be entitled to interest thereon from the date of dispossession till the date of payment thereof. But here the land has been acquired only after the preliminary notification was issued on 9-9-1992 as earlier acquisition proceedings were declared to be null and void in the suit instituted by the landowner himself and consequently, he was not entitled to compensation or interest thereon for the anterior period.

18. In a case where the landowner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the H

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. 227 KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] landowner. It is fully open for the landowner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the landowne·r is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition of the property. The c provisions of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded."

78Copy pinpoint78. We are bound by the decision of the larger Bench, D which had considered the case of Satinder Singh (supra), on which the reliance has even been placed by the claimants in the present appeal. The larger Bench after detailed discussion on the subject, rejected the claim for payment of interest claimed by the respondents in those cases, prior to the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. As is evident from the above dictum of the Court, despite dispossession, the title continues to vest in the land owners and it is open for the land owners to take action in accordance with law. Once notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act has been issued and the acquisition proceedings culminated into an award in terms of Section 11, then alone the land vests in the State free of any encumbrance or restriction in terms of provisions of Section 16 of ttie Act. The Court, in situations where possessions has been taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the G Act, can direct the Collector to examine the extent of rent or damage that the owners of land would be entitled to. The provisions of Section 48 of the Act would come to aid and the Court would also be justified in issuing appropriate direction. This was the unequivocal view expressed by the Court in R.L H

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R.

A· Jail7'0ase:{supra) as welt This' legal question is"no·niore~-0pen . to controversy and stands settled by this Court. We wou!d follow· the view taken·and accept.the contention of the appellant-State that the Reference Court as well as the High Court could not have granted any interest under the provisions of the Act, for a B date anterior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, foflowing the dictum of the Bene~. we direct the CollectOr to examine the question of payment of rent/ ' damages to the cla.imants, from the period when their respective lands were submerged under the back water of the river, till the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, from which date, they would be entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation.

79Copy pinpoint79. As noticed in the opening part of the judgment, the respondents had taken an exception and raised objection to the maintainability of the appeal before this Court being directly filed against the judgment of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division (Reference Col)rt). It is true, that right of appeal is a statutory right. It normally should be exercised in terms of the statute but the fact of the matter, in the present appeals, is that the High Court had followed its earlier view and disposed of number of appeals against the judgment of the Reference Court against which appeals have been preferred before this Court. In the meanwhile, the Reference Court had passed different judgments granting the same compensation against which appeal before the High Court would hardly be of any substantial benefit and would have been academic only. It also requires to be noticed at this stage that cer:tain appeals preferred by the State against the judgment of the Reference Court, bef~\the District Judge were also pending during the period wh~n· th~ G High Court disposed of the above-noticed appeals. In other words, the fate of the appeals preferred by the State before the District Court (First Appellate Court) challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court stood decided in view of the judgment of the High Court and became academic. In these circumstances and keeping in view the

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. 229 KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases; we db not propose to accept the objection raised by the respondents and while leaving the question of law open, dispose off the said appeal on merit.

The above-noticed facts clearly indicate that appeals are 8 even now pending before various Courts in the State of Karnataka. The Government Authorities are expected to advert to the factors relating to the pendency of various appeals including those before the Reference Court and take steps at . the ~rliest to remedy the legal grievances raised by the claimants at different levels of justice administration system. C Despite its might, it is expected to be a responsible and reluctant litigant as there is obligation upon the ·~tate to act fairly and for the benefit of the public at large. It will be in harmony with the principle of proper administration that State also takes decisions which would avoid unnecessary litigation. An. D established maxim "Boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne tis ex lite oritur, et interest reipublicae ut sint fines litium", casts a duty ~pori the Court to bring litigation to an end or at least 1

endure that if possible, no further litigation arises from the cases pending before the Court in accordance with law. This doctrine "E would be applicable with greater emphasis where the judgment of the Court has attained finality before the highest Court. All other Courts should decide similar cases particularly covered cases, expeditiously and in consonance with the law of precedents. There should be speedy disposal of cases particularly where the small land owners have been deprived of their small land-holdings by compulsive acquisition. Any unnecessary delay in payment of the compensation to them would cause serious prejudice and even may have adverse effect on their living. In these circumstances, we consider it necessary to issue appropriate directions to the State authorities and request the Courts, where cases are pending arising from the same notification, to dispose of the pending proceedings without any further delay. '. I" I

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R.

80Copy pinpoint80. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow these appeals in part, with the following directions: -

(i) The appeals filed by the State are partially allowed. In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present B case, the claimants would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.2,30,000/- per acre for the wet/garden land and at the rate of Rs.1,53,400/- per acre for the dry land.

(ii) The claimants - land owners would be entitled to get c statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act and interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act.

(iii) Since, the appeals filed by the State have been D partially allowed by this Court, we hope that the Government shall grant compensation to all the interested persons whose lands have been acquired under the same notification and pay them compensation in terms of this judgment without any further delay. E (iv) Following the principle and the directions stated by this Court in R.L. Jain's case (supra), we grant liberty to the claimants to file applications before the competent authority (State Government/ F concerned Collector) to claim damages for their dispossession from the lands owned by them as a result of submerging, till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 4th April,

2002. These applications may be filed within eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. If such applications are filed we direct the competent authority to consider the same sympathetically and award such amounts to the claimants as may be payable in accordance with law expeditiously. We make it clear that the

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. 231 KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.) amounts, if already paid for this period, shall be adjusted.

(v) The direction of the High Court for payment of interest for the period prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 4th April, 8 2002 is hereby set aside and order to be deleted.

(vi) The appeals are allowed to the above extent.

(vii) Parties to bear their own costs.

K.K.T. Appeals partly allowed. c