Eyewitness Consistency is Key in Upholding Murder Convictions," Rules Rajasthan High Court State Cannot Take the Defence of Adverse Possession Against an Individual, Rules MP High Court in Land Encroachment Case Ignoring Crucial Evidence is an Illegal Approach: P&H High Court in Remanding Ancestral Property Dispute for Fresh Appraisal A Litigant Should Not Suffer for the Mistakes of Their Advocate: Madras High Court Overturns Rejection of Plaint in Specific Performance Suit 20% Interim Compensation is Not Optional in Cheque Bounce Appeals, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court Presumption of Innocence Fortified by Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Verdict in Accident Case Absence of Fitness Certificate Invalidates Insurance Claim, Rules MP High Court: Statutory Requirement Can't Be Ignored Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Protection for Live-In Couple Amidst Pending Divorce Proceedings Reassessment Must Be Based on New Tangible Material: Delhi High Court Quashes IT Proceedings Against Samsung India Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Police Officer Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old: 'Grave Offences Demand Strict Standards' Repeated Writ Petitions Unacceptable: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenge Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Reassessment Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers in Light of Faceless Assessment Scheme Adverse Possession Claims Fail Without Proof of Hostile Possession: Madras High Court Temple's Ancient Land Rights Upheld: Kerala High Court Rejects Adverse Possession Claims Expulsion Must Be Exercised in Good Faith — Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Adjudication in Partnership Dispute Instigation Requires Reasonable Certainty to Incite the Consequence: Delhi High Court in Suicide Case

Land Acquisition | Compensation Raised to Rs. 4,50,000 Per Acre for Land Acquired Under Hippargi Barrage Project - Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, addressed appeals concerning the enhancement of compensation for land acquired under the Hippargi Barrage project. The central legal issue was the determination of the fair market value and statutory benefits owed to the appellants whose lands were acquired for the construction of canals.

The appellants, landowners of irrigated lands, were initially awarded compensation of Rs. 1,31,263 per acre by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.). Dissatisfied, they approached the Reference Court, which increased the market value to Rs. 3,00,000 per acre. Subsequent appeals and cross-objections by both parties led to a re-evaluation of the compensation amount. Notably, in a similar matter, the market value was set at Rs. 3,69,000 per acre, a decision previously confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Comparable Sales Method: The appellants sought compensation at Rs. 5,00,000 per acre, based on a High Court order for similar lands acquired during the same period under the same project. The Supreme Court noted the respondents' admission to the fairness of a market value of Rs. 3,69,000 per acre for acquisitions from 2004-2005.

Annual Escalation: Acknowledging an annual escalation rate of 5% applied from the fixed market value in 2004-2005, the court found it just to set the compensation for lands acquired in 2007 at Rs. 4,50,000 per acre, modifying an earlier High Court order.

Equitable Relief: The Court directed that the appellants be compensated at the enhanced rate with all statutory benefits, interest, and costs, though it upheld the High Court's decision to deny interest for delays in filing cross-objections.

Decision The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, granting compensation at Rs. 4,50,000 per acre. It emphasized that the decision was based on the peculiar facts of the case and should not serve as a precedent for future claims.

Date of Decision: May 07, 2024

Shripal & Anr. vs Karnataka Neravari Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

Similar News