Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

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