Read Time: 06 minutes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court whereby it had enhanced the amount of compensation in respect of the land acquired in 2008 to Rs. 40 lakhs per acre, noting that the Court had relied upon a document for the lands acquired in the year 2011 and on “guesswork”.

N. Savitha, the respondent's land was acquired by the State for a public purpose – for improvement of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary.

A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued/published on 24th November 2008, which was followed by notification under Section 6 in the year 2009. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.21,488/- per guntha.

The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.30,49,200/- per acre, i.e., Rs.76,230/- per guntha.

Savitha preferred first appeal before the High Court and requested to enhance the amount of compensation. Before the High Court, Savitha heavily relied upon a document for the lands acquired in the year 2011 for which the amount of compensation was awarded @ Rs.60 lakhs per acre. 

A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted that the document relied upon by Savitha before the High Court was a consent award in respect of the property acquired in the year 2011, which was acquired for formation of double line railway broad gauge between Bengaluru and Mysore City. 

Since the said consent award was issued after three years, "the High Court ought not to have relied upon the same while determining the market price of the land acquired in 2008 considering the market price determined for the lands acquired in the year 2011 and on the basis of some “guesswork”", said the Court.

The bench was further of the view that a consent award ought not to have been relied upon as one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consent award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate.

"In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to give a particular compensation. Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record...", said the bench.

The High Court was also held to have relied upon the consent award "mechanically" as it did not consider whether the lands acquired in the present case was similarly situated to the lands acquired in the other case.

Thus, while setting aside the impugned order, the bench has remanded the matter to the High Court to decide the first appeals afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits and thereafter to determine the market price/compensation considering the other material/evidences on record.

Case Title: Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. v. N. Savitha