http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,MALAPRABHA DAM PROJECT,

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MADIVALAPPA BASALINGAPPA MELAVANKI ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (5) 592        1995 SCALE  (5)66

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH            CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 1995 7871 OF 1995          [Arising out of SLP [C] No. 8589 of 1989 ]                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      The 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.      However, 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 [2] 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 ].      Since 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.      The appeals are accordingly allowed. No. costs.