Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Compensation Enhancement; Market Value; Irrigated Lands; Reference Court; High Court of Karnataka; Special Leave Petition; Statutory Benefits; Interest; Costs; Precedent; Peculiar Facts

1. Background of the Case

The appellants, who were land losers, appealed to the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of compensation for their lands acquired by the respondents for the Hippargi Barrage project.

2. Initial Compensation and Reference Court Decision

The lands of the appellants were irrigated, and the initial compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) was Rs. 1,31,263/- per acre. However, upon preferring a reference, the Reference Court increased the compensation to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre.

3. High Court Proceedings

The respondents filed an appeal (M.F.A. No. 100175 of 2014) before the High Court of Karnataka, challenging the enhancement of compensation. Meanwhile, the appellants filed cross-objections seeking further enhancement.

4. Comparison with Previous Cases

The appellants pointed out a previous case where the High Court awarded compensation at a higher rate (Rs. 3,69,000/- per acre) for similar irrigated lands. The Supreme Court noted this precedent and its confirmation.

5. Arguments in the Supreme Court

Both parties presented their arguments regarding the compensation rates applied in previous cases and the specifics of the present acquisition.

6. Supreme Court Decision

After careful consideration, the Supreme Court decided to modify the High Court's order. They fixed the market value of the appellants' lands at Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre, taking into account the previous precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.

7. Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, granting the appellants compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre, along with statutory benefits, interest, and costs. However, they upheld the High Court's decision to deny interest for the period of delay in filing the cross-objections.

8. Precedent and Final Remarks

The Supreme Court clarified that this order should not be treated as precedent due to the peculiar facts of the case.

9. Disposition

Any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.