Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Maharunnisa and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and L.A.O., Bijapur

Maharunnisa and anr. vs Assistant Commissioner and L.A.O., Bijapur

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Supreme Court of India Decided Aug 04, 2009
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/671356

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Appeal Nos. 5069-5070 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. <span class="skype_pnh_print_contai
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT (1 OF 1894)Sections 23 & 54: [Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha, JJ] Enhancement of compensation - Amount of compensation was determined at Rs.23/- per sq. ft. by the High Court but the appellants were directed to be paid at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. ft. as the appellants had restricted their ...

Key legal issue
Civil
Outcome / disposition
Appeal allowed
Acts & sections
Land Acquisition Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Maharunnisa and anr.

Advocate Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv.,; B. Subrahmanya Prasad,;

Respondent

Assistant Commissioner and L.A.O., Bijapur

Advocate Anitha Shenoy, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Land Acquisition Act
Reported In
2009(5)BomCR18; 2009(II)OLR(SC)484; (2009)9SCC750:2009(5)LHSC3133&3194

Court's Analysis

Prior History
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CROB No. 312 of 2003 and 2003

Excerpt

- land acquisition act (1 of 1894)sections 23 & 54: [tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha, jj] enhancement of compensation - amount of compensation was determined at rs.23/- per sq. ft. by the high court but the appellants were directed to be paid at the rate of rs.20/- per sq. ft. as the appellants had restricted their claim at the rate of rs.20/- per sq. ft. - supreme court also determined market value of acquired land at rs.23 per sq.ft. - matter remitted to high court with directions to enhance compensation if the appellants were to deposit the requisite court fees on the aforesaid enhanced amount within four months. - 2. heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment of the high court as well as other materials on record......8th of july, 2009, we have set aside the judgment of the high court and directed it to consider payment of compensation at the rate determined by the high court in that judgment but not directed to be paid because of non payment of court fees by the claimants/appellants.6. in view of the decision referred to hereinabove, we are, therefore, of the view that the impugned judgment of the high court must be set aside in part. as determined by the high court in the impugned judgment, we also fix the market value of the acquired land of the appellants at rs. 23/- per sq. ft.. however, the rest of the decision of the high court is affirmed.7. it is made clear that the enhanced compensation shall be directed to be paid to the appellants by the high court if the appellants deposit the requisite court fees on the aforesaid enhanced amount within four months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it.8. in the event, the requisite court fee, as directed above, is not paid within the time specified hereinabove, the appeals shall stand dismissed.9. for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside to the extent indicated above and the matter is remitted back to the high court for decision after giving hearing to the parties.10. the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. there will be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Tarun Chatterjee, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Judgment of the High Court as well as other materials on record.

3. The only question that needs to be decided is whether the appellants can be deprived of their rightful claim on technical ground for want of requisite Court fee without affording them opportunity to pay the deficit court fee within a reasonable time and deny the benefit of enhanced compensation.

4. In the impugned judgment, the High Court made the following directions:

For the reasons stated in the judgment passed in MFA Nos. 3936, 3939 and 3943/2003 by this Court along with cross - objections disposed of by a common judgment dated 8.9.2006 though this Court has fixed the market value in the aforesaid cases at Rs. 23/- per sq. ft. we fix the market value of the lands acquired in these cases at Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. as the owners have restricted their claim only to that extent. The owners are entitled for other statutory benefits and interest payable under the provisions of the L.A. Act.

5. From the above, it is clear that the amount of compensation was determined at Rs. 23/- per sq. ft. by the High Court in the impugned Judgment but the appellants were directed to be paid at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. as the appellants had restricted their claim at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. in respect of the lands acquired by the respondent. In a recent decision of this Court in C.A. No. 4163-4165 of 2009 decided on 8th of July, 2009, we have set aside the Judgment of the High Court and directed it to consider payment of compensation at the rate determined by the High Court in that Judgment but not directed to be paid because of non payment of Court Fees by the claimants/appellants.

6. In view of the decision referred to hereinabove, we are, therefore, of the view that the impugned Judgment of the High Court must be set aside in part. As determined by the High Court in the impugned Judgment, we also fix the market value of the acquired land of the appellants at Rs. 23/- per Sq. ft.. However, the rest of the decision of the High Court is affirmed.

7. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation shall be directed to be paid to the appellants by the High Court if the appellants deposit the requisite Court fees on the aforesaid enhanced amount within four months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it.

8. In the event, the requisite Court fee, as directed above, is not paid within the time specified hereinabove, the appeals shall stand dismissed.

9. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside to the extent indicated above and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for decision after giving hearing to the parties.

10. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial