Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] No. 4782 of 2009     CC 14290/2008

Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K.Project… Appellant Vs. Mahaboob & Anr. … Respondents

O R D E R

R. V. Raveendran J.,  

This case relates to acquisition of 1 acre 13 guntas of  land  belonging  to  respondents  1  and  2.  Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued  on  20.12.1990.  The  land  Acquisition  Officer,  by award  dated  11.9.1991,  assessed  the  compensation  at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The reference court, by award dated 10.3.2005,  increased  the  compensation  to  Rs.30,420/-  per acre,  by  capitalizing  the  agricultural  income  from  the crops of jowar and tur. The petitioner filed an appeal, contending that the compensation was excessive. The said

1

appeal  was  dismissed  by  the  first  appellate  court  on 23.12.2005. The second appeal by the petitioner was also dismissed  by  the  High  Court  on  26.10.2007.  By  this petition,  the  petitioner  seeks  special  leave  to  appeal against the said judgment.  

Drafting of Special Leave Petition

2. The petition states that the following “questions of law of general importance” arise for consideration :

(i)  Whether  the  High  Court  was  right  in dismissing  the  appeal  filed  by  the  petitioner without considering the merits of the case, only on the ground that there is delay in filing the application  seeking  condonation  of  delay  in filing  the  application  for  bringing  the  legal representatives  of  the deceased respondent  No.1 on record? (ii)  Whether  the  High  Court  was  right  in dismissing  the  appeal  even  without  considering the  application  for  condonation  of  delay  in filing  the  application  for  bringing  the  legal representatives  of  the  deceased  Respondents  on record,  when  the  petitioner  has  explained  the delay  in  filing  with  cogent  reasons  which constitutes  ‘sufficient  cause’  as  contemplated under section 5 of the Limitation Act? (iii)  Whether  the  High  Court  was  right  in dismissing  the  appeal  without  appreciating  the fact that the separate value for fodder cannot be taken  into  account  for  determination  of  market value of the land.  

2

Strangely none of these questions relates to this case nor arise in this case. Neither of the claimants-respondents died, though question (i) gives an impression  that first respondent had died and question (ii) gives an impression that  both  respondents  died  during  the  pendency  of  the appeal  before  the  High  Court.  No  application  was  filed either  for  bringing  the  legal  representatives  of  any respondent on record, or for condoning the delay in filing such application. Nor did the High Court refer to or take into  consideration  the  value  of  fodder  separately  for determination of compensation, as stated in question (iii).  

3. We  may  next turn to  the grounds on  which leave to appeal is sought. The only two grounds mentioned in the special leave petition are extracted below :

“5.1: It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court misdirected itself on facts and in law which has resulted in the passing of an erroneous order and the same is liable to be set aside.       5.2: It is submitted that the petitioner herein had  acquired  the  land  in  Sy.No.139/3  (Dry) measuring  01-13  situated  at  Magangere  under Section  4(1)  Notification  dated  20.12.1990  and the award is passed on 10.3.2005 determining the market  value  at  Rs.4,000/-  per  acre.  The respondents,  being  not  satisfied  with  the  said amount, filed a petition under Section 18(1) of the  Land  Acquisition  Act  for  enhancement.  The Reference  Court,  after  registering  the  case  in L.A.C. No.907/2000 and after hearing the parties,

3

enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.4,000/- to  Rs.30,420/-  dated 10.3.2005. The  petitioner, being aggrieved by the same, filed L.A.C. Appeal Nos.67  and  68  of  2005.  The  learned  III  Addl. District  Judge,  after  hearing  the  parties, dismissed  the  appeal  by  the  judgment  dated 23.12.2005 in L.A.C. No.67/2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented the above Miscellaneous  Second  Appeal  No.121/2006  (before the High Court).”

The  first  para  contains  a  standard  ground  usually incorporated in appeals/special leave petitions. The second para  is  not  a  ground  for  seeking  leave  to  appeal,  but merely a narration of facts. Thus in effect there is no ground on which leave to appeal is sought.

4. Thus the special leave petition (‘SLP’ for short) is filed without any grounds in support of it or questions of law. The possibility of any mix up in typing is ruled out because  Para  5.2  narrates  the  facts  correctly  and  other portions of the petition show that it relates to the case on hand.   The notings at the end of the memorandum of special leave petition states that it has been “Drawn by ‘B’,  High  Court  Government  pleader”  and  “Filed  by  ‘A’, Advocate  for  the  petitioner  State”.  It  is  a  matter  of concern that minimum care is not taken even to verify the petition before filing. The frequency of carelessly drafted

4

SLPs is rapidly increasing. The very purpose of requiring SLPs to be filed only through Advocates-on-record would be defeated  if  SLPs  prepared  by  some  other  counsel  are mechanically filed without examination or verification by the Advocate-on-record. The remedy by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is an extra-ordinary remedy, intended to be invoked in special cases and should not be treated so casually, negligently or routinely.

Delay in filing  

5. We may now turn to the aspect relating to delay of 135 days in filing the SLP. The reasons given for explaining the delay is typical, and extracted below.

“2. The impugned order is dated 26.10.2007.  The State has applied for issue of Certified copy of the impugned Order on 7.11.2007and the same was ready and delivered on 21.1.2008.  The Certified Copy of the judgment passed in MSA No. 121/2006 and the opinion of the Government Advocate, High Court was sent to the Special Officer, Legal Cell and  Ex-Officio  Deputy  Secretary  to  Government, UKP,  vide  letter  No.  6584/AGA/07-08  dated 24.1.2008.  The Special Officer, Legal Cell, UKP, has  forwarded  the  same  to  the  government  vide letter  no.  LAW-UKP-134/2006-07/LC-01032-2008  on 12.2.2008.  This was received in R & I Section on 18.2.2008.  It was mis-sent to Lit.VII Section by R & I Section and on 17.2.2008, the letter was returned to Lit.VII Section and on 23.2.2008, it was marked to the case worker.

5

3. The case worker has submitted the file on 25.2.2008 and on the same day, it was sent to the Deputy  Secretary,  Law  Department.  The  Deputy Secretary  has  sent  the  file  to  Addl.  Law Secretary-II  on  4.3.2008.  Addl.Law  Secretary-II has sent the file to Secretary, Law Department on 11.3.2008 with a note to prefer an appeal. The Law Secretary, law Department has sent the file to the Advisor to Governor on the same day. On 16.3.2008  Advisor  to  Governor  has  approved  and the  file  was  sent  to  Deputy  Secretary  on 18.3.2008 with an instruction to prefer an appeal to this Hon’ble Court. The file was sent to the Section  on  20.3.2008  to  issue  the  Government Order  for  preferring  an  appeal.  The  file  was marked  to  the  case  worker  on  24.3.2008  and  a draft  Government  Order  was  submitted  on 26.3.2008.  The draft was approved on the same day and was typed on the same day.  Fair copy of the Government was signed on 28.3.2008 and was issued on the same day. 4. Requisition was given to C & M Section on 8.4.2008 to secure file.  The file was issued on 8.4.2008. The office has written a letter to the concerned  authority  for  want  of  certified  copy and delay note on 8.4.2008.  Then entire file was put  up  to  Administrative  Officer  for  obtaining allotment of Government Advocate and the same was returned to Section on 3.4.2008 and accordingly file  was  handed  over  to  Government  Advocate immediately for drafting Special Leave Petition.  5. After  going  through  the  papers  and discussions  with  departmental  officers,  the Government Advocate has drafted the Special Leave petition and list of dates and sent back the file to  Supreme  Court  Section  on  30.5.2008.  The already called delay note was not received till 30.5.2008,  a  reminder  letter  was  also  sent  on 31.5.2008  to  secure  delay  note  and,  the  said delay  note  was  received  on  7.6.2008  and  once again file was put up to Government Advocate for drafting  I.A.  for  condonation  of  delay  on  the same  day.  The  Government  Advocate  drafted  the said I.A. for condonation of delay and sent back

6

the file to Supreme Court section on 10.6.2008 for further process. 6. And further, an intimation has been given to the  litigation  conducting  officer  on  11.6.2008 for swearing necessary affidavits.  In the mean while necessary papers given to typing and got Xeroxed  in  requisite  number  of  copies immediately.  The  litigation  conducting  officer came to Bangalore and sworn the affidavit in the third  week  of  June,  2008  and  further  after setting  all  the  papers  pertains  Special  Leave Petition and proper arrangements have been made to send Special Leave petition to legal cell at New  Delhi  for  filing  before  Supreme  Court immediately. 7. The delay if any is not an intentional one. It  is  due  to  the  administrative  procedure  and heavy work in the Law Department. Hence, it is requested to condone the delay caused.”

We  have  already  referred  to  the  result  of  so  many consultations,  legal  opinions,  discussion,  and  drafting sessions. When compared to the usual explanations offered by State Governments for delays, we should say that the delay is less than normal and explanation is more detailed than what is usually given.  By the applicable standards, the delay has to be condoned.

6. More than half the number of SLPs filed in the Supreme Court  are  by  the  State  Governments  and  Union  of  India. About 90% of these SLPs are filed with applications for condonation of delay. The delay is usually condoned keeping in  view,  the  administrative  snarls  and  bottlenecks, governmental procedures and the public interest.  But there is  an  urgent  need  to  streamline  the  ‘decision  making

7

process’ in filing ‘special leave petitions’ and reduce the delay.  Delays in filing, in virtually every SLP by the government/s, make a mockery of the provision relating to limitation and the meaning of ‘sufficient cause’.

Plight of land losers

7. We  may  now  advert  to  the  facts  of  this  case.  The acquisition  is  of  the  year  1990.  The  extent  of  land acquired is 1 acre 13 guntas. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- per acre which is about nine paise per sq.ft. Not much argument is needed to show that the compensation was very low. The total compensation as per  the  award  of  the  LAO  made  in  1991,  was  Rs.5,300/- (excluding statutory additions). Having lost his land, and consequently, the means of livelihood, the land loser had to engage a lawyer and fight for a reasonable compensation by  seeking  reference  to  the  court.  The  reference  court determined  the  compensation  as  Rs.30,420/-  per  acre  on 10.3.2005.  This  means  an  increase  of  about  Rs.35,000  in compensation  (plus  statutory  additions)  for  the  acquired land. But the land loser was not given this amount. The State Government files a first appeal, then a second appeal and  then  a SLP. The  result is except  the paltry amount

8

which he must have received when the LAO made the award, the land loser has not received any compensation for nearly 17  years  and  had  to  fight  the  litigation  before  three courts for a total compensation of Rs.40000/- (excluding statutory  benefits).  Apart  from  the  fact  that  the  land loser  would  have  spent  virtually  the  entire  amount  for litigation, whatever amount he may ultimately receive will not get him even one-fourth or one-fifth of the extent of land which he lost by acquisition. Unless the process of acquisition gives him a reasonable compensation either at the  time  of  or  immediately  after  the  dispossession,  the compensation will be a mirage for most land losers.    8. Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon the acquired land. The land is taken purportedly in accordance  with  law  by  resorting  to  acquisition proceedings.  The  Collector  (LAO)  is  supposed  to  offer  a fair  compensation  by  taking  all  relevant  circumstances relating  to  market  value  into  account.  To  safeguard  the interests of the land loser, the Act requires the Collector to make the award before the land owner is dispossessed. The intention is that the land loser will immediately be able to draw compensation and purchase some other suitable

9

land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood. But  in  practice  the  Collectors  (LAOs)  seldom  make reasonable offers. They tend to err on the ‘safer’ side and invariably assess very low compensation. Such meager awards force the land loser to seek reference to civil court for increase in compensation in regard to almost every award made by the LAO. In fact, many a time, even the reference courts are conservative in estimating the market value and it requires further appeals by the land loser to the High Court and Supreme Court to get just compensation for the land.  We  can  take  judicial  notice  of  the  fact  that  in several States the awards of the reference court or the judgments of the High Court and this Court increasing the compensation, are not complied with and the land losers are again driven to courts to initiate time consuming execution process (which also involves considerable expense by way of lawyers fee) to recover what is justly due. Resultantly the land  losers  seldom  get  a  substantial  portion  of  proper compensation  for  their  land  in  one  lump  sum  immediately after the acquisition. The effect may be highlighted by the following illustration:  

A farmer owns 3 acres of land in a village, which is  his  sole  means  of  livelihood.  The  land  is acquired for some project in the year 1990.  The true  market  value  of  the  land  was  around Rs.1,50,000/- per acre in 1990.  If he got the

10

said price, that is, Rs.4,50,000/- with solatium, additional amount and interest in the year 1991, he  has  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  purchasing some alternative land, so that he can eke out his livelihood  and  continue  to  live  with  dignity. But this rarely happens in practice. The final notification is made in 1992 and the LAO makes an award in the year 1993 offering Rs.50,000/- per acre. So the land loser is constrained to seek a reference to the court. The reference court takes three to four years to decide the reference and increases  the  compensation  to  Rs.one  lakh  per acre in the year 1996. The increased amount is deposited  in  1997-1998.  The  land  loser  is constrained to file a further appeal to the High Court and the High Court takes another three to four  years  and  increases  the  compensation  to Rs.1.5 lakh per acre in the year 2000 and such increase is deposited in the year 2001-02.  That is, the loser is forced to fight at least in two courts to get the compensation commensurate with the market value of Rs.1.5 lakhs per acre. To add to his woes, when the reference court or the High Court increases the compensation, the government does not pay the increased amount immediately and drives  him  to  execution  proceedings  also.  This means  that  the  land  owner  gets  compensation piecemeal, that is Rs.50,000/- per acre in 1993, another  Rs.50,000/-  per  acre  in  1997-98,  and another Rs.50,000/- per acre in 2001-02. At every stage he has to incur expenses for litigation. As he does not get the full compensation in one lump sum,  he  is  not  in  a  position  to  purchase  an alternative land. When the land is acquired, he loses  his  means  of  livelihood,  as  he  knows  no other type of work. The result is, he is forced to spend the compensation received in piecemeal, on sustenance of his family when he fights the legal battles for increasing the compensation and for recovering the increases granted, by levying execution.  The  result  is  that  whatever compensation  is  received  piecemeal,  gets  spent for the sustenance of the family, and litigation cost during the course of prolonged litigation. At the end of the legal battle, he is hardly left with any money to purchase alternative land and by  then  the  prices  of  land  would  have  also

11

increased  manifold,  making  it  impossible  to purchase  even  a  fraction  of  the  land  which  he originally possessed.  Illiteracy, ignorance, and lack  of  counselling  add  to  his  woes  and  the piecemeal compensation is dissipated leaving him with neither land, nor money to buy alternative land, nor any means of livelihood. In short, he is stripped of his land and livelihood.

9. When large areas are acquired, unless some effort is made  by  all  the  wings  of  government  to  ensure  prompt payment  of  realistic  compensation  with  appropriate rehabilitation  measures,  land  acquisitions  lead  to  great tragedy and ruination of poor families. We may, at the risk of stating the obvious, refer to the following steps if taken within the frame work of existing laws may provide considerable succour to the land loser: (a) Collector/LAO should offer compensation which is reasonable and realistic and very near to value. (b) Whenever courts increase the compensation, instead of mechanically filing appeals in all cases,  or  delaying  payments  without  apparent  reason,  an effort should be made to pay the increases awarded by court promptly.  (c)  The  government  and/or  beneficiaries  of acquisition should encourage and resort to negotiations to arrive  at  a  mutually  acceptable  amount  of  compensation. (d)   Avenues  of  rehabilitation  by  way  of  employment, housing,  investment  opportunities,  identification  of

12

alternative lands, may be explored and implemented. When large tracts of lands belonging to several land owners are acquired  by  development  authorities  for  formation  of residential  or  commercial  layouts,  schemes  may  be formulated which contemplate 25% to 30% of the land area being used for roads amenities and open spaces, and utilize the  remaining  area  which  is  developed  into  plots,  by selling  about  one-third  by  auction  to  recover  the development cost, by allotting about one-third to poor or needy at cost price, and by releasing/allotting about one- third area to the land losers whose lands were acquired. Some development authorities have reduced land acquisition litigation considerably either by entering into negotiated consent  awards  or  formulating  schemes  for  sharing  the developed  area  with  the  land  losers.  Others  may  emulate them with appropriate modifications.  

10. We are not unaware of the fact that in some cases, the awards of courts is high. The main reason therefor is the failure  on  the  part  of  Collectors/LAOs/Beneficiaries  of acquisition,  to  conduct  the  cases  before  the  reference court  properly.  They  either  fail  to  cross-examine  the claimant’s witnesses or fail to lead evidence to rebut the

13

high claims. An attempt is belatedly made to set right the matter by filing appeals.  

11.  It is not our intention to discourage the governments or  the  beneficiaries  of  acquisition  from  filing  appeals where high compensation or unreasonable awards are made by courts. Nor is our intention to suggest policy or interfere with  existing  policy.  Our  endeavour  is  only  to  draw attention to the plight of many land losers and to some aspects of land acquisition litigation, so that urgently needed remedial measures can be initiated for the benefit of land losers for whom acquisition means deprivation of the means of livelihood. Unless there is a concerted effort by  the  governments/beneficiaries  of  acquisition/ collectors/courts to give effect to the legislative intent of  prompt  disbursement  of  adequate  compensation,  the suffering and disillusionment will continue.

Conclusion  

12. Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  submitted  that there  was  delay  in  seeking  reference  and  therefore  the reference ought to have been rejected. Such a ground was not urged either before the reference court, or the first

14

appellate court or before the High Court or even in the SLP.  In  the  circumstances,  we  cannot  countenance  such  a contention.  

13. Resultantly, we condone the delay, but dismiss the SLP as having no merit. We may add that we find no specific fault with the Advocate-on-record in this case.  We have merely taken the opportunity to advert to several general shortcomings in filing of special leave petitions, with the hope bringing changes for the better.     

_________________J. [R. V. Raveendran]

__________________J [J. M. Panchal]

New Delhi; February 9, 2009.   

15