Land Acquisition – Compensation – Deduction for Development and Smallness – Exemplar Sale Value – Section 4 Notification dated 04.08.1995 for acquisition of approximately 98 acres for construction of a 400/220 KV Sub-Station at Kartarpur near Jalandhar — LAO awarded Rs.3,00,000/- per acre; Reference Court enhanced the same; High Court adopted exemplar sale (Exh.P-3) at Rs.15,68,000/- per acre and applied 60% deduction for development and smallness, arriving at compensation of Rs.6,27,200/- per acre — Appellants challenged the 60% deduction as excessive; Held: No error in applying 60% deduction, which is within the permissible upper benchmark of 75% laid down in Chandrashekar's case [Paras 8-9, 19].

Development Charges – Rationale – Two Components – Deduction for development charges comprises two components: (i) area/space to be kept apart for roads, pavements, sewers, parks, electricity lines, civic amenities etc.; and (ii) expenditure likely to be incurred for raising such infrastructure — Both components exist in the present case as a whole township including office complex, residential colonies, roads, parks and civic amenities was to come up alongside the Sub-Station — Standard deduction towards development cost ranges from 20% to 75% depending on facts and circumstances [Paras 14-17].

Land Acquisition – Development Deduction – Upper Benchmark – A combined deduction for development and smallness cannot exceed 75% — Development charges alone may go up to an upper benchmark of 67%; deductions for other factors including smallness may vary depending on facts, provided the cumulative deduction does not cross 75% — Where deduction in excess of 75% is necessary, the exemplar itself would be rendered incomparable and inapplicable [Para 15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed — High Court's order applying 60% deduction on exemplar value and fixing compensation at Rs.6,27,200/- per acre upheld — No order as to costs.

Property Law - Land Transfer – SC/ST Land Protection – Delay and Laches – Karnataka Act of 1978 – Section 4 – Original grantee received land in 1977 with grant certificate issued in 1981 under Schedule E of the Land Revenue Code, which prohibited alienation for 15 years – First transfer effected in 1997, after expiry of the 15-year prohibition period – Appellant purchased the land in 2003 – Proceedings initiated in 2006-07 under the Act of 1978, nine years after the first transfer – Authorities and High Court annulled the sale holding any transfer without prior Government permission to be null and void under Section 4 – Held: The proceedings were initiated by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, sons of the original grantee, who were themselves parties to the first transfer in 1997 and were aged approximately 35 and 25 years respectively at the time — this distinguishing fact takes the case outside the protective ambit of the beneficial legislation invoked – Orders of authorities and High Court set aside [Paras 2–8].

Beneficial Legislation – Laches – Distinction from Precedents – While the Act of 1978 is a beneficial legislation designed to protect SC/ST grantees from being enticed into parting with their lands, the protection cannot be invoked by persons who were themselves knowing and willing parties to the alienation – Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner held an 8-year delay not fatal where villagers initiated proceedings against illegal transfers; Shakuntala recognised that even where no limitation is prescribed, proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time – Present case distinguishable as the initiators of proceedings were adult parties to the very transfer sought to be annulled, not uninformed legal representatives or the village community [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned orders of the authorities and the High Court set aside – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 8–9].

Specific Performance – Decree – Conditional Decree – Inexecutability – Non-Deposit of Balance Sale Consideration – Plaintiff-respondent obtained decree of specific performance on 31.10.2012 directing defendant to execute sale deed upon receiving balance sale consideration within three months – Balance sale consideration was not deposited within the stipulated period nor was any application for extension of time moved within that period – Execution petition filed on 08.01.2015 was resisted by defendant on ground of inexecutability – Executing Court and Revisional Court dismissed the objections; High Court upheld the same – Held: Decree for specific performance is conditional in nature imposing reciprocal obligations; non-compliance of the condition to deposit balance sale consideration within the stipulated time renders the suit automatically dismissed and the decree inexecutable; appeal allowed [Paras 3, 16–35, 52].

Specific Performance – Nature of Decree – Preliminary Decree – Court Not Functus Officio – A decree passed in a suit for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree and the court passing the same does not become functus officio upon its passing – The court retains control and jurisdiction over the decree till the sale deed is actually executed or the decree is rendered inexecutable – Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 confers discretionary power on the court to extend time for compliance or to rescind the contract in the event of default [Paras 36, 39(i)–39(iii)].

Conditional Decree – Automatic Dismissal – No Extension Without Application – A decree of specific performance is self-operative and conditional – Where the balance sale consideration is not deposited within the time stipulated and no application for extension of time is moved within the said period, the suit for specific performance stands automatically dismissed and the decree ceases to exist in the eyes of law – Mere permission to deposit granted subsequently by the executing court, or actual deposit thereafter, does not ipso facto amount to deemed extension of time or condonation of delay – Interim order restraining alienation of suit property does not prohibit deposit of balance sale consideration [Paras 25–30, 35].

Section 28 – Rescission – Application Not Mandatory – The filing of an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescinding the contract is not mandatory but optional – The court in appropriate circumstances is not powerless to treat the contract as rescinded for non-compliance of the condition without such an application being moved – Failure of the judgment debtor to seek rescission under Section 28 does not revive an inexecutable decree or make it executable when deposits were not made in time [Paras 31–34, 39(vii)].

Specific Performance – Equitable Relief – Readiness and Willingness – Conduct of Decree Holder – Relief of specific performance under Sections 16(C) and 20 of the Act is equitable and discretionary and the court is not bound to grant it merely because there was a valid agreement – Court must examine conduct of the plaintiff both prior to and subsequent to filing of the suit – Plaintiff who obtained decree of specific performance is obliged to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform his obligations; failure to deposit balance sale consideration within stipulated time and failure to move any application for extension indicates absence of genuine readiness and willingness – He who seeks equity must do equity [Paras 43–48].

Limitation – Second Execution Petition – Maintainability – Dismissal of First Execution for Want of Prosecution – Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides twelve years from the date of decree or when it becomes enforceable for filing an execution application – Dismissal of first execution petition on default/want of prosecution is not a decision on merits and does not preclude the decree holder from filing a fresh execution petition within limitation – Second execution filed on 08.01.2015 against decree dated 31.10.2012 held to be within time [Paras 21–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Decree of specific performance dated 31.10.2012 rendered inexecutable – Contract rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Execution proceedings directed to be closed – Defendant-appellant directed to refund earnest money of Rs. 80,000/- with simple interest at 8% per annum from 19.10.2005 till refund; in default, liberty to sell half acre of suit land within three months to make payment – Orders of High Court and Executing Court set aside – Pending applications disposed of.

Environmental Law – Environmental Clearance – Formaldehyde Manufacturing Units – Ex-Post Facto EC – Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate – NGT Order of Closure Set Aside – Appellants are formaldehyde and resin manufacturing units in Rajasthan and Haryana, established and operated pursuant to valid CTE and CTO granted by the respective State PCBs – NGT, by order dated 03.06.2021 in Dastak N.G.O., directed that such units cannot operate without prior EC; the other two original applications involving the appellant-units were decided by relying upon the said NGT order – Held: The NGT judgment in Dastak N.G.O. having been set aside by this Court in Pahwa Plastics (supra), and the factual matrix of the appellant-units being similar to Pahwa Plastics, the impugned closure directions stand set aside; ratio of Pahwa Plastics applied mutatis mutandis [Paras 3–4, 17, 20, 23, 26–27].

Precedent – Pahwa Plastics – Applicability – PCBs Unaware of EC Requirement – Bona Fide Establishment – The PCBs of Rajasthan and Haryana were themselves unaware of the applicability of the EIA 2006 Notification to formaldehyde units at the time CTE and CTO were granted; upon realising the requirement, the PCBs issued notices directing appellant-units to apply for EC within sixty days, which was duly complied with – Screening, Scoping and TOR completed; Public Consultation exempted for most units as they are situated in notified industrial areas; two units (Guruji Overseas and Chemwood Industries) have completed Public Consultation and only Appraisal remains; two units have already been granted EC – Held: The case is not one of deliberate non-compliance; the judgment of Pahwa Plastics squarely applies [Paras 7–13, 20, 24–26].

Argument Repelled – 8000 Workers – Applicability of Pahwa Plastics Not Confined to Large Units – Respondents contended that Pahwa Plastics was decided to protect approximately 8000 workers and cannot apply to appellant-units employing only 10–15 workers – Held: The figure of 8000 workers referred to in Pahwa Plastics encompassed all formaldehyde manufacturing units, including the present appellant-units, and was not confined to the units in Pahwa Plastics alone; argument repelled [Para 22].

Ex-Post Facto Environmental Clearance – Vanashakti Judgment and Review – Effect – The Vanashakti judgment dated 16.11.2025 struck down OMs dated 14.03.2017 and 07.07.2021 as being illegal; the Vanashakti Review judgment dated 18.11.2025 by a three-Judge Bench allowed the review petition and acknowledged the ratio of Pahwa Plastics – Held: The delay in grant of EC to the appellant-units was attributable to the pendency of the Vanashakti litigation; Pahwa Plastics continues to hold the field and the challenge based on OM dated 07.07.2021 is not sustainable [Paras 5–6, 12–13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Closure orders passed by NGT set aside – Appellant-units permitted to function and operate – Respondents directed to decide pending EC applications within one month – Electricity, if disconnected, to be restored subject to payment of charges – Union of India to inform appellant-units within three working days of any further steps required – Pending applications disposed of.

Medical Law – Professional Misconduct – MCI Ethics Committee – Natural Justice – Declaration Form – Appellant, a senior paediatrician, appeared as faculty at SSSMC, Dehradun during MCI inspection on 22.01.2015 and subsequently joined PMC, Patna on contract – Declaration Form signed by him on 21.04.2015 for PMC assessment did not disclose his earlier appearance at SSSMC in the same academic year – MCI Ethics Committee initially exonerated him as he was abroad attending ESPGHAN conference at Amsterdam on the date of PMC inspection (05.05.2015) – Executive Committee referred matter back, whereupon Ethics Committee found him guilty of serious misconduct for non-disclosure and directed removal of his name from Indian Medical Register for three months – Single Judge allowed writ petition; Division Bench reversed and restored penalty – Held: Civil appeal allowed in part; punishment modified by exercise of power under Article 142 [Paras 2–17].

Natural Justice – Charge Framing – Change of Charge Without Notice – Once a delinquent successfully defends the original charge framed against him, the disciplinary authority cannot, without issuing a fresh show cause notice, hold him guilty of a different and new charge not originally framed – Show cause notice dated 09.12.2015 charged appellant with appearing as fake faculty at two institutions; having successfully defended this charge by proving absence from India on the inspection date, the Ethics Committee proceeded to hold him guilty of the separate charge of non-disclosure in the Declaration Form without affording him any opportunity to respond – Held: This constitutes a clear breach of principles of natural justice and the Executive Committee could not have imposed punishment on the new charge without a fresh show cause notice [Paras 10–12].

Misconduct – Mis-declaration – Quantum of Punishment – Article 142 – Despite the procedural infirmity, the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the mis-declaration in the Declaration Form, wherein he had affirmed that he had not presented himself to any other institution as faculty in the current academic year for purposes of MCI assessment – Such brazen mis-declaration, unexplained, constitutes misconduct that could not be condoned – However, considering that the Executive Committee's decision dates back to 21.07.2016 and nearly a decade has elapsed, and that the appellant is now 76 years of age with the matter hanging over him for ten years – Held: In the interest of complete justice, penalty of removal from Indian Medical Register for three months modified to issuance of a censure/warning by NMC in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 13–16].

Decision: Civil appeal allowed in part – Punishment modified from removal from Indian Medical Register for three months to issuance of censure/warning by NMC – NMC directed to issue order accordingly – Interim orders vacated.

Forest Law – Revenue Records – Title to Land – Reserve Forest Notification – Writ Jurisdiction – Appellants claimed ownership of 600 acres in Survey No. 81, Kalvalanagaram Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District, based on pattas allegedly granted in 1931-32 by the Nizam of Hyderabad – Joint Collector rejected the claim in 2003 for failure to produce original patta certificates and proof of possession – Single Judge allowed the writ petition, declared the 1950 Notification ultra vires as issued under a repealed Act, and declared appellants' title – Division Bench reversed, holding the Notification not invalidated merely by reference to the wrong enactment and that revenue entries without original title documents cannot establish ownership – Held: Civil Appeal dismissed, Division Bench judgment upheld [Paras 2–21].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Fiscal Purpose – It is well settled that entries in Revenue Records, Faisal Patti, Vasool Baqi and Pahanies serve only a fiscal purpose enabling payment of land revenue – Revenue records do not confer or prove title, mutation neither creates nor extinguishes title and carries no presumptive value regarding ownership – Stray or solitary entries for a single year cannot be relied upon to establish rights – Appellants failed to produce the foundational patta document and the revenue entries relied upon were contradictory and unauthorised, with Survey No. 81 consistently recorded as "Jungle" in Pahanies – Held: Revenue entries insufficient to establish title to the Subject Matter [Paras 15–18].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Scope of Judicial Review – Certiorari – A writ of certiorari lies only on limited grounds, namely, want of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or error of law apparent on the face of the record – Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not the appropriate forum for resolving serious disputes concerning questions of fact and title to property, which are the proper function of a civil court in a regularly constituted suit – Held: Single Judge exceeded the scope of judicial review by effectively declaring appellants' title to the Subject Matter in writ proceedings; such course is unavailable and was rightly corrected by the Division Bench [Paras 17, 19–20].

Forest Notification – Validity – Wrong Enactment – A notification is not rendered invalid merely because it references a repealed enactment, provided it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act and the purpose for which it was issued is apparent – Held: 1950 Gazette Notification proposing reservation of Survey No. 81 as reserve forest cannot be declared ultra vires solely on the ground that it was issued under the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1326 Fasli rather than 1355 Fasli [Para 10].

Decision: Civil Appeal dismissed – Order of Division Bench upheld – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement – 100% Permanent Disability – Minor Claimant – Notional Income – Appellant aged fourteen years suffered 100% permanent disability in a motor accident on 08.11.2016 when the motorcycle he was riding pillion was driven negligently and struck a tractor trolley – Claims Tribunal awarded ₹7,76,543/- – High Court partially enhanced compensation to ₹12,17,543/- taking notional annual income at ₹30,000/- – Supreme Court finds notional income determined by the High Court to be on the lower side – Held: Notional income to be fixed on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled workman in Rajasthan in 2016 at ₹5,800/- per month (annual ₹69,600/-); future prospects at 40% added; multiplier of 18 applied; loss of income computed at ₹17,53,920/- [Paras 2–8].

Attendant Charges – Two Attendants – Round the Clock Assistance – Multiplier Applied – High Court awarded ₹1,21,800/- under attendant charges, which the Supreme Court found grossly inadequate given the nature of permanent disability – Held: Appellant requires services of two attendants round the clock for the rest of his life; minimum wages of a semi-skilled workman at ₹5,000/- per month taken as attendant charges; applying multiplier of 18 for two attendants, total attendant charges computed at ₹21,60,000/-; 25% of attendant charges to be immediately released; remaining 75% to be placed in fixed deposit with annual release of ₹1,50,000/- to enable future needs [Paras 9, 11].

Compensation – Various Heads – Enhancement – Mental Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities – Future Medical Expenses – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Supreme Court enhanced amounts under non-pecuniary and other heads – Held: Mental pain, suffering and loss of amenities enhanced to ₹10,00,000/-; future medical expenses enhanced to ₹3,00,000/-; loss of marriage prospects enhanced to ₹3,00,000/-; special diet and transportation awarded at ₹1,00,000/-; medical bills and operation charges retained as awarded by High Court at ₹69,743/- – Total compensation determined at ₹56,83,663/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till actual payment [Paras 10, 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Rajasthan High Court dated 09.04.2024 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1334 of 2022 modified – Total compensation of ₹56,83,663/- awarded with interest at 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition – Amounts already paid to be taken into account – Parties to bear their own costs – Pending interim application disposed of.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – CIRP of Holding Company – Assets of Subsidiary Companies – Corporate Veil – Lifting Justified – Corporate debtor EIL had three subsidiary companies holding leasehold lands allotted by GNIDA on which EIL itself undertook development of projects Earth Towne, Earth TechOne and Earth Sapphire Court – NCLAT held that assets of subsidiaries could not be treated as assets of the corporate debtor and set aside NCLT orders approving the resolution plans – Held: Where subsidiary companies are inextricably connected to the holding company, share common directors, have no independent business of their own, and exist only as a front for the holding company's operations, the corporate veil ought to be lifted – EIL was the main driving force in development of all three projects and in payment of GNIDA's dues; the subsidiary companies were merely a front – This was an eminently fit case for lifting the corporate veil and treating the project lands as effectively forming part of the CIRP proceedings against EIL [Paras 53–56].

Resolution Plan – Scope – Development Rights vs. Title – Leasehold Lands – Resolution plans of Alpha and Roma unequivocally recorded that only development rights in relation to the projects were included and not the title to the underlying lands – GNIDA's ownership of the land would not stand transferred; what was contemplated was merely transfer of possession to the successful resolution applicants to enable completion of projects and delivery of units to allottees as sub-lessees – Held: Transfer of possession of leasehold lands to resolution applicants for project completion is permissible and does not amount to transfer of title [Paras 44–46, 56].

GNIDA – Inaction and Ineptitude – Disentitlement to Penal Interest – GNIDA failed to monitor development on leased lands, issued only sporadic and intermittent default notices, was aware that EIL was executing the projects but failed to take coercive steps, did not participate in CIRP proceedings despite being informed by both the IRP in December 2018 and the RP in May 2019, and filed its claims belatedly before the already-displaced IRP – Held: GNIDA contributed greatly to the present imbroglio by persistent inaction and ineptitude and is, therefore, not entitled to penal interest, penal charges or time-extension penalties; dues are to be recalculated excluding such charges and communicated to Alpha and Roma within two weeks [Paras 48–51, 67].

Payment of Dues – Schedule – Interest Waiver – Successful resolution applicants Alpha and Roma directed to clear the recalculated principal dues of GNIDA (excluding penal interest and penalties) in equated monthly instalments over twenty-four months, commencing with the first payment on or before 7th July 2026 – GNIDA not entitled to any interest on principal amounts for the extended payment period of twenty-four months, owing to its own failure in monitoring and timely recovery – Alpha and Roma to bear dues entirely without burdening the home/office space buyers – Registration of units in favour of allottees to be undertaken only after GNIDA's dues are paid in full with its active participation [Paras 67–68].

Project-Specific CIRP – Real Estate Insolvency – CIRP in real estate cases can be project-specific, limiting the insolvency process to projects in default so as to protect homebuyers in viable projects – As per Regulation 36A(1) of the IBBI Regulations (as clarified with effect from 15.02.2024), a Resolution Professional, after CoC approval, may invite resolution plans project-wise – Supreme Court's earlier decisions affirming project-specific resolution in real estate cases referred to with approval [Para 12].

Earth Copia – Freehold Project – NCLAT's Error – Alpha's resolution plan also covered Earth Copia, a project on freehold land in Gurugram having no connection whatsoever with GNIDA – NCLAT erred in setting aside Alpha's entire resolution plan without noticing that the NCLT's order dated 08.06.2021 also included approval of the plan in relation to Earth Copia – GNIDA had no grievance in relation to this project and ought to have clarified this in its appeal – Held: Setting aside of Alpha's resolution plan, insofar as it pertains to Earth Copia, was erroneous [Paras 29, 50].

Limitation – Appeals before NCLAT – Delay Condonation – Section 62(2) of the Code – Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 19132 of 2023 filed with a delay of 34 days against the NCLAT judgment dated 30.01.2023 – Section 62(2) empowers the Supreme Court to condone delay in filing up to 15 days but not beyond – Held: Appeals barred by time and dismissed on this short ground [Para 4].

Dissenting Homebuyers – Authorised Representative – Section 25A(3A) of the Code – Individual homebuyers who did not vote in favour of the resolution plan cannot maintain a separate voice of dissent once the authorised representative has cast his vote in accordance with the decision of more than 50% of the voting share of the financial creditors he represents – A few persons within a class cannot dissent against the majority vote in favour of the resolution plan [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Civil Appeal Nos. 1526, 1743, 2491, 2466, 3438 and 4619 of 2023 allowed – Resolution plans of Alpha and Roma restored – Civil Appeal Nos. 2406-2407 of 2023 disposed of in terms of the judgment – Civil Appeal Nos. 3435-3437 of 2023 and Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 19132 of 2023 dismissed – Civil Appeal Nos. 2756 and 2763 of 2023 filed by GNIDA dismissed – GNIDA to recalculate dues excluding penal interest and penalties and communicate to resolution applicants within two weeks – Resolution applicants to pay dues over twenty-four monthly instalments commencing 7th July 2026 – Time frames for project completion to commence from 1st June 2026.

Civil Law – Execution of Compromise Decree – Guideline Value Determination – High Court Exceeds Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – N.I.C.E. having failed to convey Schedule 'B' land to Decree Holder No. 2 as agreed under the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.08.2007, became liable under Clause (xiii) thereof to pay the guideline value of the Schedule 'AA' land (3 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 122/272/2, Kengeri Village, Bengaluru) as prevailing on the date of compromise – Executing Court determined the value at Rs. 1,000/- per sq. ft. by applying the Karnataka Government Notification dated 17.04.2007 (base rate of Rs. 800/- per sq. ft. for converted sites within BBMP/municipal limits, enhanced by 25% for abutting State Highway) – High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, impleaded the State of Karnataka, accepted its spot inspection report, and reduced the value to Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. by applying Instruction No. 6 of the Notification – Held: High Court exceeded the limits of its supervisory jurisdiction; the interpretation adopted by the Executing Court was plausible and reasonable and not perverse; High Court in effect acted as an Appellate Court [Paras 30–37].

Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Power Not to Be Exercised as Appellate Court – The power of superintendence under Article 227 does not permit the High Court to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view merely because an alternative interpretation is possible – Supervisory jurisdiction is limited to cases of unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, gross abuse of jurisdiction, unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction, or findings so perverse that no reasonable person could arrive at them – Held: High Court's impleadment of the State at a belated stage during a private lis, and acceptance of the State's self-serving interpretation of its own notification to influence the outcome, was impermissible [Paras 31–36].

Guideline Value – Karnataka Notification dated 17.04.2007 – Application of Special Instructions – Instruction No. 6 Inapplicable – The schedule land, bearing Sy. No. 122, falls within the jurisdiction of BBMP/Kengeri City Municipal Council and is expressly covered under Column 6 of the Notification attracting a base rate of Rs. 800/- per sq. ft. – Adding 25% under Instruction No. 2 for abutting a State Highway yields Rs. 1,000/- per sq. ft. – Instruction No. 6, which fixes industrial land at 50% of the residential site rate, operates only as a residual provision where no specific guideline value is prescribed; since a specific rate is prescribed under Column 6, the exclusionary phrase in Instruction No. 6 ("excluding these areas") squarely applies and the fallback 50% reduction never gets triggered – Applying Instruction No. 6 in the present facts would yield an anomalous result of valuing converted urban land lower than agricultural land [Para 37].

Compromise Decree – N.I.C.E.'s Contention Rejected – Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate and Reprobate – N.I.C.E. consistently contended that the land, having been converted for industrial use in 2004 but remaining undeveloped, should be valued as agricultural land at approximately Rs. 350/- per sq. ft. – Held: Having agreed under the compromise that compensation would be payable at the guideline value prevailing on the date of settlement, and being fully aware that the schedule land stood converted for industrial use, N.I.C.E. cannot be permitted to resile from that position and seek valuation on an agricultural basis – Reliance on K.S. Shivadevamma (1996) 2 SCC 62 — a land acquisition case — held misplaced, as guideline value is a statutory benchmark not dependent on developmental potential [Paras 39–39.2].

Interest – Entitlement of Decree Holders – Interest at 6% p.a. Upheld – Compromise decree does not contain a specific interest clause; however, the order of this Court dated 09.04.2012 directed N.I.C.E. to pay the amount determined within eight weeks of determination by the Executing Court – N.I.C.E. deposited only the admitted amount and not the full amount determined – High Court in W.P. No. 25158 of 2012 (order dated 11.06.2013) separately allowed interest at 6% per annum from 20.08.2007 till payment – Held: That determination is binding and the direction for interest shall be subject to the outcome of any proceedings challenging that order [Para 39.3].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 1388 of 2013 (filed by N.I.C.E.) dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 1354 of 2013 (filed by Decree Holders) allowed – Impugned judgment and order dated 12.09.2012 of the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 21068 of 2012 set aside – Order of the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (Executing Court) restored – Schedule 'AA' land valued at Rs. 1,000/- per sq. ft., total Rs. 13,72,14,000/- – N.I.C.E. directed to pay balance of Rs. 8,79,95,250/- with interest at 6% p.a. as ordered in W.P. No. 25158 of 2012 – Parties to bear their own costs.