SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER versus KARIGOWDA & ORS.

28. In the light of these principles now we may advert to the language of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. The provision open with the words, that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the court shall take into consideration the stated criteria and in terms of Section 23(1-A), the claimants would be entitled to additional amount @ 12 % per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, to the date on which the Award is made by the Collector or possession of the · land is taken, whichever is earlier. In addition to this, in terms of Section 23(2), the land owners-claimants are entitled to 30% 'on such market value' because of the compulsory nature of acquisition. 'Such market value' is an expression which must be read ejusdem generis to the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act, as they alone would provide meaning and relevancy to the guidelines which are to be taken into consideration by the courts for determining the market value of the land. The expression 'shall' can hardly be construed as 'may' giving an absolute discretion to the court to take or not to take into consideration the factors stated in Section 23( 1) of the Act. The expression 'shall' thus would have to be construed as mandatory and not directory. It is more so, keeping in view the language of Section 24 of the Act, which mandates that the court shall not take into consideration the matters indicated in firstly to eighthly of Section 24 of the Act. This legislative intent needs to be noticed for beneficial and proper interpretation of these provisions in the light of the scheme underlining the provisions of the Act.

29. The expression 'such market value' used in Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) respectively obviously would mean and refers to the market value determined in terms of Section 23(1) of the Act. This expression has been well explained by different judicial pronouncements and they have consistently been [2010) 5 S.C.R. A following what the Privy Council in the case of Municipal Council of Colombo v. Kuna Mana Navanna Suna Pana Letchiman Chettiar [ AIR (34) 1947 PC 118), laid down. There it is stated that "such market value" as used in Section 23 of the Act is the price which a willing vendor might be expected B to obtain in the open market from a willing purchaser. It is the price which would be payable to a person after the complete appraisal of land with its peculiar advantages and disadvantages being estimated with reference to commercial value. c

30. This principle holds good even now and any other consequential right, legal or commercial, which remotely flows from an agricultural activity will not and should not be treated as a relevant consideration.

31. Equally true will be the principle that the extent of compensation would always depend on the facts and circumstances of the given case and it is not possible to set any absolute legal principle as a panacea which uniformly will be applicable or capable of being applied as a binding E precedent dehors the facts of a given case.

32. The discretion of the Court, therefore, has to be regulated by the legislative intent spelt out under these provisions. It is no more res integra and has been well settled by different judgments of this Court, requiring that the F computation of compensation has to be in terms of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and that too from the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is only the statutory benefits which would be available in terms of Sections 23(1- A) and 23(2) of the Act.

33. A Bench of this Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors. [(2007) 9 sec 447), while discussing on this aspect of the Act and its relevancy to the market value of the land, held as under SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] "22. In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded, the LAO shall be guided by the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. As per Section 22 of the Act, the market value of the land has to be determined at the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 25-8-1994. As per Section 24, the LAO shall also exclude any increase in the value of land likely to accrue from use to which it will be put once acquired. The market value of the land means 'the price of the land which a willing seller is reasonably expected to fetch in the open market from a willing purchaser. In other words, it is a price of the c land in hypothetical market. During the site inspection, it has been observed that the land under acquisition is situated in Sancoale and Cortalim Village adjacent to the land already acquired for the same purpose earlier."

34. This was also reiterated by this Court in the case of D Mohammad Raofuddin v. The Land Acquisition Officer, [ (2009) 5 SCR 864 ] stating that Section 23 contains a list of positive factors and Section 24 has a list of negative, vis-a-vis the land under acquisition, to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation, the first step being the determination of the market value of the land from the date of publication of Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.

35. The next question which is of some importance arises. out as a corollary to the above discussion. Should there be direct nexus between the potentiality of the acquired land as on the date of the Notification or can any matter which may be consequential or remotely connected with the agricultural activity be the basis for determining the market value of the land? Does the scheme of the Act, particularly with reference to Sections 23 and 24 of the Act permit such an approach? This question has to be answered in the negative. What is required to be assessed, is the land and its existing potentiality alone as on the date of acquisition. Moreover, the potentiality has to be A directly relatable to the capacity of the acquired land to produce agricultural products or, its market value relatable to the known methods of computation of compensation which we shall shortly proceed to discuss.

36. The second circumstance specified in Section 23(1) to be considered by the Court in determining compensation is the damage sustained by the person on account of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the . Collector's taking possession thereof. Even from a reasonable practicable view it has to be understood that the compensation C which is payable to the claimants is in relation to the acquired land, the standing crops or trees and what they earn from the agricultural crops or fruits or trees on the agricultural land. To extend the benefit for the purposes of compensation, considering that the fruits grown on the agricultural land would D be converted into Jam or any other eatable products will not be a relevant consideration within the scheme of the Act. The purpose is not to connect the acquisition to remote factors which may have some bearing or some connection with the agricultural activity being carried on, on the land in question. E Such an approach by the Court is neither permissible nor prudent, as it would be opposed to the legislative intent contained under the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.

37. Similarly, another example which can usefully be referred at this stage itself is that a person growing sugarcane on the land, which is acquired, would be entitled to the compensation of the land with reference to the agricultural yield and/or capitalization thereof only in respect of sugarcane. The G rate of sugarcane in the market may be a relevant consideration but the fluctuating prices of sugar and other allied products in the market will be of no relevance in determining the fair market value of the acquired land.

38. It is the option of the agriculturist to give his sugarcane SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] crop for manufacture of sugar or gur or for any other purpose which he may choose using his business wisdom but the costing and manufacturing activity of that particular product for which the sugarcane had been supplied by him would not be, in our view, a relevant consideration for determining the fair market value of the land, whichever be the method of computation of compensation adopted by the court of competent jurisdiction.

39. Such approach is in consonance with the judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as the requirements of law. In the case of State of Orissa v. Brij Lal Misra and Ors. [ (1995) 5 SCC 203 ], the Court clearly stated the principle that any increase in the amount awarded by way of compensation keeping in view the potentiality of the land and further increase on future potentiality would be contrary to the provisions of clauses fifthly and sixthly of Section 24 of the Act. The provisions of the Act require the court not to take into consideration various other factors including increase in the value of the acquired land, likely to accrue from the use for which it was acquired may be put to on a subsequent stage in regard to any lay out or improvement scheme etc.

40. Thus the restriction stated in law hasbeen followed by the judgments of this Court and there is no occasion to take any view at variance to the existing law.

41. On proper analysis of the above stated principles and the relevant provisions of law, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that consequential or remote benefits occurring from an agricultural activity is not a relevant consideration for determination of the fair market value on the date of the Notification issued under Section 4( 1) of the Act. It is only the direct agricultural crop produced by the agriculturist from the acquired land or its price in market at best, which is a relevant consideration to be kept in mind by the court while applying any of the known and accepted method of computation of compensation or the fair market value of the acquired land.

42. Having answered the question of law, now we would proceed to apply this principle to the facts and circumstances of the cases before us. In paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of this judgment we have referred to the findings recorded by the Reference Court and the High' Court for enhancing the B compensation from Rs. 90,640/- to Rs.2,92,500/- (by the Reference Court) and Rs.5,00,000/- (by the High Court ) for wet (irrigated) land. The same is not in conformity with the settled principles of law.

43. Mulberry crop is a crop which is grown on the land and C then this crop is used as feed for silk worms which ultimately results in producing silk thread used for various purposes at a commercial level.

44. The respondents in the present appeal had filed an D affidavit dated 14th July, 2009 to substantiate their arguments that cocoons and silk thread is the end product for which the Mulberry crop is being used and, therefore, the income from or market value of cocoon and even the silk thread would be a relevant consideration for determination of compensation. In E paragraph 1 (1) of the affidavit it has been averred that cocoon (a female moth) in a single laying lays 450-550 Grains DFL (Deceased Free Layings) on a single day. The same is made to lie on an egg sheet. The entire 450-550 Grains are called as one egg and each of these Grains will develop as one F cocoon. Therefore, out of one egg the claimants get 450-550 cocoons which weigh 1.5 gms to 2.00 gms. each. The literature annexed to this affidavit shows that Sericulture, the technique of silk production, is an agro-industry playing an eminent role in the rural industry of India. It also says that the cost of G producing mulberry has a direct impact on the cost of producing ,,. '"' cocoons, as nearly 60% of the total cost of production of cocoons goes to the production of mulberry leaves.

45. The photographs contained in the literature placed on record also show that mulberry crop is grown like other crops H and its leaves are used as a feed to cocoons. It is after tl'\ey SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARtGOWDA & ORS. [S\IVATANTER KUMAR, J.] are provided with this food that they convert themselves into cocoons which are then industrially processed to the manufacture silk and is ultimately converted in those manufacturing units as a silk thread.

46. The handbook issued by the Central Silk Board under the title 'Handbook of Sericulture Technologies' shows that the full grown plant is a plant which is ready for pruning and suggest that to improve the leaf quality as well as the producti~ity, whenever necessary, plant protection measures must be followed. These measures are taken only after pruning and 15 to 18 days before leaf harvest for brushing. From brushing to two feedings after second instar, the silk worms are fed with tender leaves. The leaves to be harvested are from below the largest glossy leaf, which is yellowish green in colour. The cardinal point is shoot tip and it should :iot be removed during any crop. Below the glossy leaf, about 3 leaves during the first (1-3) and about 3 leaves (4-6) during the second instar can be harvested. Silk worms grow best when fed with fresh mulberry leaves, which are rich in nutrients and moisture. Under tropical conditions, driage of leaf is faster. Usually, the leaves are harvested twice a day and are preserved for successive feedings, depending on the necessity. During the periods, the leaves should be properly preserved. c

47. Thus, the literature submitted by both the parties before us clearly show that manufacture of silk from cocoons is a process of manufacturing where the silk worms are fed with the mulberry leaves grown on fields and which alone is an agricultural activity. There is a connection between the two but it is not of such a direct relevancy that it should form the criteria for awarding compensation in terms of Section 23 of the Act. The mulberry crop is like tea crop and is grown in the shape of small trees or bushes. The leaves are taken off and used for feeding the silk worms for production of silk thread. It is upon the person carrying out the agricultural activity whether he sells his mulberry crop to a manufacturing unit or establishes his own A unit for that purpose'and utilizes the mulberry crop grown on the 'fields for the process of manufacturing by providing it as a food to the silk worms.

48. It would have been more desirable for the reason that 8 there was no evidence led by the claimants to substantiate and justify their claim with reference to the alleged silk cocoons being an agricultural activity, the onus being upon them. There was a presumption in the mind of the court as well as the claimants that, the manufacture of silk thread by the stated C process of boiling silk cocoons which is the result of the silk · worm being fed by mulberry leaves is an agricultural activity. This presumption is contrary to law and the literature referred by the expert body as well.

49. It is quite similar to the crops grown in different parts D of the country for example sugarcane and tea. The tea leaves are pruned and used for manufacturing different kinds of tea and allied products. Similar is the case with the sugarcane. The manufacturing and commercial activities for m<;1nufacture of tea, sugar and for that matter silk from silk worms cannot be treated E as a permissible factor to be taken into consideration by the courts for determining the fair market value of the land. Activity of agriculture cannot thus be equated to sericulture. While agricultural activity is the growing of mulberry crop and disbursing it, manufacture of silk thread from silk worms w.ho . F are fed with mulberry leaves, and then converted through the specified process into cocoons and ultimately silk thread and · its sale is an activity of sericulture which primarily falls in tlie domain of manufacturing and commercial activity. This activity of producing silk from silk worms for which mulberry crop is G used as food, therefore, cannot be an activity directly covered under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. Even by the process of judicial interpretation, it will amount to drawing an impermissible inference that sericulture is a part of agricultural activity, that foo to the extent to make it a permissible consideration under the relevant provisions of the Act SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

50. We may also usefully refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of K. Lakshmanan and Co. ·and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [(1998) 9 SCC 537], where the Court was primarily concerned with what is the agricultural income for the, purposes of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court considered that the assessee was growing mulberry leaves which were not otherwise marketable and could only be used to feed the silk worms from which he was obtaining silk cocoons. It was held by the Court : "Had mulberry leaves been subjected to some proeess and sold in the market as such then certainly the income derived therefrom would be regarded as agricultural income but the case of the appellant before the authorities, and in this Court, has been that, mulberry leaves cannot be sold in the market and they can only be fed to the silkworms. The agricultural produce of the cultivator will be mulberry leaves and by no stretch of imagination can the silkworms, and certainly not the silk cocoons, be regarded as the agricultural produce of the cultivator."

51. The aforesaid judgment clearly shows and supports the view that we have taken, that silk worms being converted into silk cocoons and final product being silk thread for which some process or manufacturing activity is taken by the manufacturer, does not include growing of mulberry crop which is a food only for silk worms and thus, is only an agricultural activity and the entire remaining process cannot impliedly or by inference be termed as agricultural activity or an activity dire.ctly connected to agriculture for the purposes of Section 23 of the Act.

52. The learned Reference Court which enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,92,500/- in relation to wet land ; Rs.1,46,250/- lightly irrigated land and Rs.1,20,000/- to other land, and the High Court in enhancing compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- for wet land and Rs.2,53,750/- for dry land have primarily based their reasoning which is not sustainable in law (2010] 5 S.C .. R. A being contrary to the statutory scheme of the Act.

53. We are unable to appreciate the approach adopted by the learned Reference Court and as upheld by the High Court. The basic error of law to which the courts below have 8 fallen is that ultimate manufacturing of silk thread under the nomenclature of cocoons has been treated as a purely agricultural activity relevant for determination of fair market value of the land in terms of Section 23 of the Act.

54. We are unable to uphold the mlthodology adopted by C the courts as well as the extent of co,J;pensation awarded to the claimants. The other reasons f¢r our not accepting the findings recorded and compensation allowed by the High Court is that, there is no evidence on reco~d to show that there is any intrinsic or inseparable link between the two activities. D Furthermore, there is hardly any evidence on record, and in fact nothing was brought to our notice by the claimants have proved by documentary or any other cogent evidence, that they were carrying on the activity of sericulture and were utilizing mulberry crop only for that purpose. Even if that was so, we have serious E doubt that even in those circumstances, whether it could be said to be 3 relevant consideration.

55. The error by the courts in appreciation of evidence is that they have treated the cocoons as the crop and not mulberry . leaves. In fact, it is the very basis of a claim for higher F compensation that cocoons being the agricultural end product, they were entitled to higher compensation. We have already indicated that there is no direct evidence led by the claimants in this regard. The courts have only referred to the statement of PW-1 to say that there were six crops of mulberry plants. G Further, the document Exli. P-9 showed that claiman.t Karigowda (respondent herein) was growing mulberry crop on the entire acquired land of 37 guntas for the purpose of sericulture. Thus relying on Exhs. P-9 and P-10, statement of PW-1 and on the computation put forward by the claimants, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION. OFFICER v. . KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] enhanced compensation was granted: It may be noticed that PW-1 in his own statement has stated that mulberry plants are used for the purposes of feeding the silk worms. He stated that 'farmers are doing sericulture in huge quantity in the area but which of the person was carrying on the said activity has not been stated. No record has been produced. Neither any other claimant entered in the witness box in support of the compensation claimed, nor any statistics or figures. were produced, supported by the previous record, as to how they were carrying on this activity. The so called expert opinion again is not specific and supported by any scientific data. In fact, it c Is based more upon what the expert felt rather than the opinion ~which the expert would support, by actual physical inspection Q.f the lands in question, data and literature·.

56. It is also come on record that the entire lands situated in the village do not have the same fertility. Vide Exh. P-9 it was stated that the yield of cocoons per acre differ from crop to crop and this was an average estimated report. This exhibit is of no help to the claimants inasmuch it does not give the statistics with regard to mulberry crops but talks of cocoons which were stated to be 250-300 in one acre wet land (for 1 crop).

57. While adopting the criteria of capitalization and multiplying the same by 10, the finding of the High Court is clearly not supported by any cogent evidence on record and thus the question of applying the multiplier to a figure which has been arrived at, without any evidence would be inconsequential.

58. There is no direct and appropriate evidence to show any nexus to support the claim of the claimants. Thus, cocoons cannot be considered as a crop even as per literature submitted by the respective parties. Therefore the finding recorded is unsustainable even on appreciation of evidence. What method should be adopted for determining fair market of the acquired land SUPREME CO~RT REPORTS

59. To examine what method could be adopted for determining the market value of land and criticism of the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector, by the courts, that the same is not in accordance with law, we' must notice various methods which are normally adopted by the Courts for B determining the fair market value of the land and which of the method can be more properly applied in the facts and circumstances of this case.

60. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act spell out the have and have nots, applicable to the scheme of awarding compensation C by the Collector but do not describe the methodology which should be adopted by the courts in determining the fair market value of the land at the relevant time. By development of law, the courts have adopted different methods for computing the compensation payable to the land own,ers depending upon the D facts and circumstances of the case. The Courts have been exercising their discretion by adopting different methods, inter alia the following methods have a larger acceptance in law : (a) Sa/es Statistics Method: In applying this method, it has been stated that, sales must be genuine and bonafide, should have been executed at the time proximate to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land and the land should be comparable to the acquired land. The land covered under the sale instance should have similar potential and occasion as that of the acquired land {Faridabad Gas Power Project, N. T. P. C. Ltd. & Ors. v. Om Prakash & Ors. [2009 (4) SCC 719], Shaji Kuriakose & Anr. v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. & Ors. [AIR 2001 SC 3341], Ravinder Narain & Anr. v. Union of India [2003 (4) SCC 481]}. (b) Capitalization of Net Income Method: This method has also been applied by the courts. In this method of determination of market value, capitalization of net income SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] method or expert opinion methqd has been applied. . {Union of India & Anr. v. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors. [1983 (4) SCC 542], Executive Director v. Saraf Chandra Bisoi & Anr. [2000 (6) SCC 326], Nelson Fernandes & Ors. V. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors. (supra)} (c) Agriculture Yield Basis Method: Agricultural yield of the acquired land with reference to revenue records and , \keeping in mind the potential and nature of the land – wet (irrigated), dry and barren (banjar). . 61. Normally, where the compensation is awarded on agricultural yield or capitalization method basis, the principle c of multiplier is also applied for final determinatio.n. These are broadly the methods which are applied by the courts with further reduction on account of developmenfCharges. In some cases, o depending upon the peculiar facts, this Court has accepted the principle of granting compound increase at the rate of 10% to 15% of the fair market value determined in accordance with law to avoid any unfair loss to the claimants suffering from compulsive acquisition. However, this consideration should squarely fall within the parameters of Section 23 while taking care that the negative mandate contained in Section 24 of the Act is not offended. How one or any of the principles afore stated is to be applied by the courts, would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. 62. In the present case, the Court has applied the method of agricultural yield and multiplier of 10 years. Further, it has declined to accept the method adopted by the Collector for granting compensation to the claimants for the reason that the SLAO ought not to have taken recourse to the method of sale statistics. It was further recorded that no sale instances of Sanaba Village three years prior to 2002 were available and instances of adjacent village should not have been taken into consideration. Instead, the market vall;!e should have been SUPR,EME COURT REPORTS . [2010] 5 S.C.R. A calculated by adopting capitalization method and no reason was stated as to why this metho~ was not applied. We are unable to accept the approach of the High Court as well as that of the Reference Court on both these issues. Firstly, we are of the considered view that adopting the method of agricultural yield and applying the multiplier method on the basis that the cocoon was an agricultural crop and resultantly silk cocoon itself . was an agricultural activity was not. correct. We need not elaborate on this aspect in view of our detailed discussion on it sup(a. Secondly, we are also of the firm view that the Reference Court fell in error of law in stating that the lands of C the adjacent or nearby villages could not have been taken into 'consideration and compensation could be determined with reference to the sales statistics. 63. It is not in dispute before us that the entire land was acquired for the same purpose and, in fact, the entire land including the land of the adjacent villages had submerged or was utilized for the purposes of constructi~m and operation of the Hemavathi Dam. This Court has held in number of judgments that the lands of the adjacent villages can be taken into E consideration for determining the fair market value of the land, provided they are comparable instances and satisfy the other ingredients stated in this judgment. It can hardly be disputed that the land in the area of village Sanaba and the adjacent village is being used for growing mulberry crops which is F supplied by the agriculturists to the silk factories or they use the same for their own benefit of manufacturing silk. The lands were given two classification i.e. wet land and lands which were not having their own regular source of irrigation (dry lands). 64. It is a settled principle of law that lands of adjacent G villages can be made the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. This principle of law is qualified by clear dictum of this Court itself that whenever direct evidence i.e. instances of the same villages are available, then it is most desirable that the court should consider that evidence. But SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] where such evidence is not available court can safely rely upon the sales statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances are comparable and the potentiality and location of the land is somewhat simila't. The evidence tendered in relation to the land of the adjacent villages would be a relevant piece of evidence for such determination. Once it is shown that situation and potential of the land in two different villages are the same then they could be awarded similar compensation or such other compensation as would be just and fair. 65. The cases of acquisition are not unknown to our legal system where lands of a number of villages are acquired for the same public purpose or different s·chemes but on the commonality of purpose and unite development. The parties are expected to place documentary evidence on record that price of the land of adjoining village has an increasing trend and the court may adopt such a price as the same is not impermissible. Where there is commonality of purpose and common development, compensation based on statistical data of adjacent villages was held to be proper. Usefully, reference can be made to the judgments of this Court to the cases of Kanwar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India [JT 1998 (7) SC 397) and Union of India v. Bal Ram & Anr. [AIR 2004 SC 3981). 66. In this regard we may also make a reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanwar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India [AIR 1999 SC 317), where sale instance of the adjacent villages were taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the land in question and their comparability, potential and acquisition for the same purpose was hardly in dispute. It was not only permissible but even more practical for the courts to take into consideration the sale statistics of the adjacent villages for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. 67. We are unable to hold, that the SLAO had exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly while making the sale statistics of the adjacent villages Sanaba and [2010] 51S.C:R. A Pandavapura as the basis for colnptiting the compensation payable for the acqui~ed land, However the extent of compensation which ought to have been awarded, we shall discuss shortly. 68. At this stage; we may notice the proceedings of the SLAO, where he submitted the draft compensation award of the acquired land to the Government for its approval in accordance with law. As per clause 6 of this Report, he had visited and inspected the lands in the presence of various C officers at Village Sanaba, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Karnataka which were flooded by the backwaters of the river. Even the claimants were present and they had prayed for compensation of Rs. 60,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs. 90,640/- per acre for garden land. But they did not produce any document before the said authority for determining the D compensation for the acquired land. The Report reads as under "In this regard, as per confirmation letter of the guidance value at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pandavapura, the guidance value of the dry land during the period 1998-99 to 2001-02 a;e as follows : Years Per Acre of dry land 1999-2000 Rs. 36,000-00 2000-2001 Rs. 36,000-00 2001-2002 Rs. 38.000-00 3 years Rs. 1, 10,000-00 Average 1, 10,000 = 36,666.66 or 36,667-00 Per Gunta Rs. 916.68 or Rs. 917/- While fixation of the compensation for the dry land, it is Rs. 37,200/- per acre of dry land and Rs. 930/- per gunta as per the statement of sale transaction at the office of the Sub Registrar, Pandavapura Taluk and as per the SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] SI No guidance value it is observed to be Rs. 37,200/- per acre and Rs. 930/- per guntas of land. ·' , While fixation of compensation amount to the garden lands, since there are no sale transactions of the garden lands in Sanaba Village, the statement of the same are not available for consideration at the office of the Sub- Reg istrar, Pandavapura. For the said reason, the statement of the sale transactions of the garden lands within the Hobli Circle of the said village is taken as base. As such, the details of the transactions are as under : Name of the Sy. Nature Extent Sale R.No. Village No. of cons id- land eration date Mahadevapura 84/1 Garden 0-10 G Rs.26000 1318/99-00 (Melukote land 4-10-99 Hobli) Hosahalli 12/6 Garden 0-18 G Rs.37500 1770/99-00 (Chinkurali land 6-12-99 Hobli) Dinkakaval Out Garden 0-10G Rs.27000 184/00-01 (Chinkurali of land 29-04-00 Hobli) Vaddara halli 36/4 Garden 0-09 Rs.30000 199/01-02 (Kasaba land 20-4-00 Hobli) 36/2 Garden 0-03 land 3613 Garden 0-02 land Vaddara halli 51/7 Garden 0-17Y, Rs.37000 1028/01-02 (Kasaba land 26-06-01 Hobli) Total 01-29 y. 1,57,500 c [201 O] 5 S.C.R. The extent of garden land in which there was transaction : 01 Acre 29 Yi Guntas . Total amount of transaction : Rs. 1,57,500/- P~r Acre 1.57.500 x 40 = 90647-48 or 90640-00 69.5 Per gunta 2266-18 or 2266-00 Per Acre Rs. 90,640/- and per gunta Rs. 2266/- In the same matter, the guidance value of the garden lands available at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pandavapura is examined and the details are as under : Year Per Acre of garden land 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 Rs. 85,000-00 Rs. 85,000-00 Rs. 90.000-00 Rs. 2.60.000-00 Per Acre = 2.60.000 = Rs. 86,666.67 or Rs. 86,667 and Per gunta Rs. 2167/- While fixation of the compensation amount for the garden lands, finally, the statements of the sale transactions and the guidance value details were made in comparison. AS such, the statements of sale transactions as base is considered to be just and hence per acre of garden land Rs. 90,640/- ·and per gunta as Rs. 2,266/- is decided and fixed. For the amount of compensation fixed i.e. Rs. 37,200/- per acre of dry land and Rs. 90,640/- per acre of garden land, as statement shall be prepared and for the said amount a legislative compensation at the rate of 30% SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] without interest shall be paid" 69. The above compensation was computed by the SLAO on the basis of the sale instances of the villages falling within the same Circle as well as on the basis of the guidance value maintained in the Register of the Sub-Registrar of the concerned villages. From the Report, it is evident that both these villages Sanaba and Pandavapura are located in the same Circle and are practically part of the larger revenue estate. It was not in dispute before us that primarily all these lands were being- used for cultivating mulberry crop which is the sole agricultural activity. The court has to keep in mind a very pertinent equitable principle while awarding compensation, i.e the court should grant just and fair market value of the land at the time of the acquisition while ensuring that there is no undue enrichment. These are compulsive acquisitions but the guiding factor for the court is sale instances of a willing seller and a willing purchaser while determining the compensation payable. To award fair compensation is the obligation of the State and depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts may enhance the compensation within the framework of law. The-Sale instances referred to by the Collector in his report are from the same villages or nearby villages or adjacent villages which are a part of the same Circle and where the land can easily said to be comparable as the entire chunk of the land was being used for raising mulberry crop and was acquired for common purpose, that is, the lands were submerged in the water coming from the Hemavathi Dam. 70. This Court in the case of Shaji Kuriakose (supra) held – that out of the three afore stated methods, the courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation of land is preferred than the other methods such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales methods of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the A market value of the acquired ·land which· a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In Kantaben Manibhai Amin & Anr. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda [AIR 1990 SC 103] this Court B also stated that latest sale instance closer to the date of notification for acquisition of the land should be taken into consideration. 71. It is also an accepted judicial norm that the claimants can be given the benefit of awarding compensation on the C basis of the genuine sale instance containing the highest rate, provided it has been proved in accordance with law and is a comparable instance. Such sale instance must satisfy all the requirements and pre-requisite stated in the Act. It should be a bonafide transaction and should also be in reasonable D proximity to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Since the SLAO had referred to the four sale instances which were produced before him and being part of the reference file, they were duly noticed by the Reference Court as well as by the High Court. But the Courts held that it was not appropriate E to apply sales statistics method in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the claimants produced no sale instances. In our view, these sale instances can be taken into consideration by the Court and benefit of the highest instance can be granted to the claimants in accordance with law in fixing F the market value of the acquired land. Whatever benefit accrues to the claimants from the record produced and proved by the respondents, cannot be denied to them just because they have not produced evidence by way of sale instances. 72. The afore noticed sale instances which were taken into consideration by the SLAO, and which were part of the reference file show that there was an increasing trend in the sale price of the land in these villages as 10 guntas of garden land was sold in Mahadevpura (Melukote Hobli) for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- on 04.10.1999 while 9 guntas of garden land was SPECIAL LAND ACQUISIT!ON OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] sold in Vadara Halli (Kasaba Hobli) for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 20.04.2000. Similarly, 18 guntas of garden land was sold in Hosahalli (Chinkurali Hobli) for a sum of Rs. 37,500/- on 06.12.1999 and 10 guntas of garden land was sold in Oinkakaval (Chinkurali Hobli) for a sum of Rs. 27,000/- on 29.04.2000, all these sold lands fall in the same circle. Besides this increasing trend and the fact that all these villages are adjacent villages to each other, the highest price fetched was for the sale instance executed on 26.06.2001 where ~ 7 Yz~ guntas of garden land was sold in village Vaddara Halli (Kasaba Hobli) for a sum of Rs. 37,000/-. The notification under c Section 4 was issued on 04.04.2002 that means that all the sale instances of the adjacent comparable lands are in proximity of time to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The average of sale statistical instances referred above comes out to be Rs. 1,57,500/- for sale of 01 Acre 29 Yz Guntas i.e. 90,647.48 per acre. Since the sale instances relied upon are nearly around 1 to 2 Yi years prior to the date of notification, they are relevant considerations and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to an increase at the rate of 15% per annum compounded. 73. The aforesaid increase, in our view, is justified and equitable – firstly, on the ground that there was increasing trend in the sale price of that land and secondly, the lands acquired were being used by the agriculturists for production of mulberry crops which had a restrictive use in the manufacturing, commercial or industrial activities i.e. feeding the silk worms which are ultimately used for production of silk thread. The court cannot use thi~ admitted restricted use to the disadvantage of the land owners and some benefit should be given to them while balancing the equities in accordance with law. The concept of G fair compensation payable for the acquired land is embodied in the Act itself, particularly in view of secondly and fifthly of Section 23 of the Act. In fact, it was stated during the course of arguments by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, the State Government itself has given some A additional compensation to the claimants for mulberry crops which were standing at the time of submerging. We find this stand of the State Government to be reasonable and fair. Thus, giving a 15% compounded increase for 2 % years on the sale ·price of Rs. 1,08,000/- in respect of garden land, the claimants B would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,53,542.50 per "'"re for the wet (ir;igated) land. This can even be examined fivrn another point of view, that is, the sale instance no. 3 where the land in village Dinkakaval (Chinkurali Hobli) garden land of 10 guntas were sold for a sum of Rs. c 27,000/- on 29.04.2000, i.e. approximately 2 years prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This would give the sale price of the surrounding village lands to the acquired land at the rate of 1,08,000/- per acre for the garden land. Giving it a compound increase of 15% for two year it will come to Rs. 1,42,830/- (Rs. 1,08,000/- + 15% on Rs. 1,08,000/- = Rs. 1,24,200/- for the first year; Rs. 1,24,200/- + 15% on Rs. 1,24,200/- = Rs. 1,42,830/- for the second year) and Rs. 1,42,830/- + 7.5% of Rs. 1,42,830/- = Rs. 1,53,542.50 for two · and half years. We have two important facts which cannot be ignored by the Court. Firstly, that the claimants, by leading definite evidence have shown on record that the lands in question are not only lands having regular source of irrigation through the backwaters but otherwise are also lands superior fo the other garden lands used for ordinary agricultural activities. The fields in question are being used exclusively for growLng mulberry crops. Mulberry leaves are the only and the specifieCl food for cocoons: In other words, the agricultural purpose for whj9h the fields in questiori are being used is a special purpose and the crop so grown is G again used for a specific commercial purpose to which there is no other alternative. In fact, none was stated before us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In all these peculiar facts, it cannot be disputed that some additional benefits have to be provided in favour of the claimantc. In the H present cases, the claimants have not only lost their agricultural SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] land but they have also been deprived of seasonal income that was available to them as a result of sale of mulberry leaves. Deprivation of livelihood is a serious consideration. The Court is entitled to apply some kind of reasonable guess work to balance the equities and fix just and fair market value in terms of the parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act. The SLAO has ignored both these aspects firstly providing of annual increase, and secondly, giving some weightage to the special agricultural purpose and the purpose for which the mulberry crop had to be utilized. The claimants have not proved and produced on record sale instances. They have also not c produced on record any specific evidence to justify the compensation awarded to them by the Reference Court and/ or the High Court. In fact, there is hardly any evidence, much less a cogent and impeccable evidence to support the increase on the basis of net income capitalization method. It is a settled rudiment of law that the Court, in given facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the potentiality and utility of the land acquired, can award higher compensation to ensure that injustice is not done to the claimants and they are not deprived of their property without grant of fair compensation. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, A. P. v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao [(2007) 3 SCC 526]. While adopting the average sale method as the formula for awarding compensation to the claimants, we are also of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the land is being compulsorily acquired, the claimants should be awarded a higher compensation. The compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre for the wet land and at the rate of Rs. 1,53,400/- per acre for the dry land would be just and fair compensation and would do complete justice between the parties. This element of increase had not been added by the SLAO which ought to have been done. As far as claimants are concerned, they have not produced and proved any sale instance and as already noticed, they have not [2010) 5 S.C.R. even brought on record any specific evidence to justify their claims relatable to and based upon net income capitalization method. In fact, we do not hesitate in observing that claimants have faile'd to discharge their onus fully and satisfactorily. 74. The claimants have proceeded on the assumption that they will be entitled to get compensation, by treating the silk cocoons reared by them as the yield from the land and by capitalizing the value of the silk cocoons. We have already held that the determination of the market value by capitalization of C yield method will depend upon the agricultural yield, that is, value of agricultural produce less expenditure for growing them, and not with reference to a further sericultural activity by using the agricultural produce. Therefore, what could be capitalized for determination of market value was the value of mulberry leaves used for sericulture and not the value of silk cocoons produ~ed by feeding such mulberry leaves to the silkworr:ns. The yield of silk cocoons is the result of further human effort and industry, value of which obviously cannot be capitalized for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the agricultural land. ,,. The evidence discloses that the acquired lands were used for E growing mulberry crop which was being harvested to provide feed for the silkworms by way of sericulture. Therefore, one way of arriving at the market value is to provide appropriate addition for the mulberry cultivation to the value arrived at for the land without mulberry, cultiv(ltion. The second method is instead of F taking the valua;-Of.. cocoons for the purpose of capitalization, take a part thereof, being the value of the mulberry crop input and capitalize the same. The land in question is special garden lands being used only for growing mulberry crop. 75. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, it will also be just and fair to adopt some liberal approach with some element of guess work to provide the claimants with just and fair market value of the !arid in question. It must be remembered that, the entire land including village Sanaba and all other villages was acquired for the purpose of submerging SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] the lands because of the water coming from the Hemavathi Dam. In view of the cumulative discussion referred to above, we are of the considered view that it will be just, fair, equitable and in consonance with Sections 23 and 24 of the Act that the market value of the land as on 04.04.2002 can safely be taken as Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre in the case of garden land and, applying the accepted principle of reducing the said compensation in the case of dry lands by one third, the rate will be Rs.1,53,400/- per acre in the case of dry land keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence on record. c Claim in regard to interest payable on taking of possession 76. The claimants while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Satinder Singh & Ors. v. Umrao Singh and Anrs. [AIR 1961 SC 908) and some other judgments of the High Court had claimed that they are entitled to receive interest from the date when their lands were submerged in the year 1993 onwards and not from the date of the Notification i.e .. 4th April, 2002. It was contended that since they had lost possession and interest being payable in lieu of possession, they would be entitled to receive interest from those dates i.e. from 1993, and not from the date the Land Acquisition Collector had granted, i.e. 4th April, 2002. The Reference Court as well as the High Court accepted this contention while referring to the judgments of the Executive Engineer, Dhenke.nal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa & Ors. v. N. C. Budharaj (deceased) by Lrs. & Ors., ((2001) 2 SCC 721 ] and Satinder Singh (Supra), granted the relief to the claimants as prayed. 77. The reliance placed by the respondents upon the judgment of N. C. Budharaj (supra), was with reference to the scope and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act. That case related to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and with reference to the relevant sections of the Interest – 224 i . ,r. 1ddU;· i"•·'., ·• .. , … .. .. A Act, 1839, where t_his Court has held that provisiqns of t~.e,. Act couid be made applicable to arbitration as there was n6thing tb 'indicate 'tnat its application was· restricted. Thus, it is not necessary for us to deliberate on the judgment of N.C. ·audharaj case (supra) any further. Further, even the reliance placed upon B Satinder Singh case (supra) is not of much help to the respondents. This judgment relates to the period, prior to intrbductit:ih and/or amendment of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 34 of the Acti.e. on 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants, that it is now C a well settled proposition of law that Reference Court cannot grant interest for any period prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. As such, possession even if taken or assumed to have oeen taken earlier would, dehor the provisions of the Act and, therefore, was improper. Thus, the possession has to be legal and within the framework of law. The provision of the Act clearly lays down the procedure required to be followed while taking possession of the acquired land. The words "from the date on which he took the pos_session of the land" occurring in Section 20 would mean lawful taking of possession. The case of Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [(1991) 1 SCC 262], also stated the principle that, interest on the compensation amount could be awarded under Section 34 of the Act, with effect from the date of taking possession. However, this controversy need not detain us any further, as the three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of F R.L. Jain (0) by Lrs. v. DOA & Ors. [2{)04 (4) SCC 79] I COnSidered all these aspects Of the matter and held aS ,under 15. Similar view has been taken in a recent decision by a Bench of two Judges in Lila Ghosh v. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 9 sec 337 anrl the reasons given there in para 16 of the Report are being reproduced below: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS'. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] .. , ,·,,\ cirtj tr' C" , 1-'' "' ;• .' :<tH ,:·•:1·1,. ':·· :d l'1LI 16 ……. There are two decision~ ,of this Court, wherein same controversy arose, namely, whether the claimant would be entitled to additional sum at the rate of tweh(e per centum on the market value where possession has been taken over prior to publication of notification under Section 4(1 ). In Special Tahsildar (LA), PWD Schemes v. M.A. Jabbar, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 142 which has been decided by a Bench of two Judges (K. Ramaswamy and Mrs Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.), it was held that the claimant would not be entitled to this additional sum for the period anterior to publication of notification under Section c 4(1). However, in·Asstt. Commr., Gadag Sub-Division~. v::.. fvlathapathi Basavannewwa, reported in (1995) 6 SCJ; 355 also decided by a two-Judge Bench (K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.) it was held that even though notification under Section 4(1) was issued after taking possession of the acquired land the owners would be entitl~d to additional amount at twelve per cent per annum from the date of taking possession though notification under Section 4(1) was published later. For the reasons already indicated, we are of the opinion that the view taken in Special Tahsildar (supra) is legally correct and the view to the contrary taken in Asstt. Commr. (supra) is not in accordance with law and is hereby overruled. 17. Shri Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has also placed strong reliance on Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh (supra) wherein the question of payment of interest in the matter of award of compensation was considered by this Court. In this case the initial notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 b,ut the proceedings for acquisition were completed under East Punjab Act 48 of 1948. The High Court negatived the claim for interest on the ground that the 1948 Act made no provision for award of interest. After. quoting with approval the following observations of the Privy Council in Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. New Brunswick c [2010) 5 S.C.R. El~ctric Power Commission, reported in AIR 1928 PC 287. "upon the expropriation of land under statutory power, whether for the purpose of private gain or of good to the · public at large, the owner is entitled to interest upon the principal sum ayvarded from the date when possession was taken, unless thEt-.statute clearly shows a contrary intention" the Bench held as under: ": .. when a claim for payment of interest is made by a person whose immovable property has been acquired compulsorily he is not making claim for damages properly or technically so-called; he is basing his claim on the general rule that if he is deprived of his land he should be put in possession of compensation immediately; if not, in lieu of possession taken by compulsory acquisition interest should be paid to him on the said amount of compensation". 17.1. The normal rule, therefore, is that if on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his property he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith he would be entitled to interest thereon from the date of dispossession till the date of payment thereof. But here the land has been acquired only after the preliminary notification was issued on 9-9-1992 as earlier acquisition proceedings were declared to be null and void in the suit instituted by the landowner himself and consequently, he was not entitled to compensation or interest thereon for the anterior period. 18. In a case where the landowner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] landowner. It is fully open for the landowner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the landowne·r is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition of the property. The c provisions of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded." 78. We are bound by the decision of the larger Bench, which had considered the case of Satinder Singh (supra), on which the reliance has even been placed by the claimants in the present appeal. The larger Bench after detailed discussion on the subject, rejected the claim for payment of interest claimed by the respondents in those cases, prior to the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. As is evident from the above dictum of the Court, despite dispossession, the title continues to vest in the land owners and it is open for the land owners to take action in accordance with law. Once notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act has been issued and the acquisition proceedings culminated into an award in terms of Section 11, then alone the land vests in the State free of any encumbrance or restriction in terms of provisions of Section 16 of ttie Act. The Court, in situations where possessions has been taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, can direct the Collector to examine the extent of rent or damage that the owners of land would be entitled to. The provisions of Section 48 of the Act would come to aid and the Court would also be justified in issuing appropriate direction. This was the unequivocal view expressed by the Court in R.L A· Jail7'0ase:{supra) as welt This' legal question is"no·niore~-0pen . to controversy and stands settled by this Court. We wou!d follow· the view taken·and accept.the contention of the appellant-State that the Reference Court as well as the High Court could not have granted any interest under the provisions of the Act, for a B date anterior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, foflowing the dictum of the Bene~. we direct the CollectOr to examine the question of payment of rent/ ' damages to the cla.imants, from the period when their respective lands were submerged under the back water of the C river, till the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, from which date, they would be entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. 79. As noticed in the opening part of the judgment, the respondents had taken an exception and raised objection to D the maintainability of the appeal before this Court being directly filed against the judgment of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division (Reference Col)rt). It is true, that right of appeal is a statutory right. It normally should be exercised in terms of the statute but the fact of the matter, in the present appeals, is that E the High Court had followed its earlier view and disposed of number of appeals against the judgment of the Reference Court against which appeals have been preferred before this Court. In the meanwhile, the Reference Court had passed different judgments granting the same compensation against which F appeal before the High Court would hardly be of any substantial benefit and would have been academic only. It also requires to be noticed at this stage that cer:tain appeals preferred by the State against the judgment of the Reference Court, bef~\the District Judge were also pending during the period wh~n· th~ G High Court disposed of the above-noticed appeals. In other words, the fate of the appeals preferred by the State before the District Court (First Appellate Court) challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court stood decided in view of the judgment of the High Court and became H academic. In these circumstances and keeping in view the SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases; we db not propose to accept the objection raised by the respondents and while leaving the question of law open, dispose off the said appeal on merit. The above-noticed facts clearly indicate that appeals are even now pending before various Courts in the State of Karnataka. The Government Authorities are expected to advert to the factors relating to the pendency of various appeals including those before the Reference Court and take steps at . the ~rliest to remedy the legal grievances raised by the claimants at different levels of justice administration system. Despite its might, it is expected to be a responsible and reluctant litigant as there is obligation upon the ·~tate to act fairly and for the benefit of the public at large. It will be in harmony with the principle of proper administration that State also takes decisions which would avoid unnecessary litigation. An. D established maxim "Boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne tis ex lite oritur, et interest reipublicae ut sint fines litium", casts a 1 duty ~pori the Court to bring litigation to an end or at least endure that if possible, no further litigation arises from the cases pending before the Court in accordance with law. This doctrine "E would be applicable with greater emphasis where the judgment of the Court has attained finality before the highest Court. All other Courts should decide similar cases particularly covered cases, expeditiously and in consonance with the law of precedents. There should be speedy disposal of cases particularly where the small land owners have been deprived of their small land-holdings by compulsive acquisition. Any unnecessary delay in payment of the compensation to them would cause serious prejudice and even may have adverse effect on their living. In these circumstances, we consider it necessary to issue appropriate directions to the State authorities and request the Courts, where cases are pending arising from the same notification, to dispose of the pending proceedings without any further delay. I" I 80. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow these c appeals in part, with the following directions: – (i) The appeals filed by the State are partially allowed. In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.2,30,000/- per acre for the wet/garden land and at the rate of Rs.1,53,400/- per acre for the dry land. (ii) The claimants – land owners would be entitled to get statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act and interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act. (iii) Since, the appeals filed by the State have been partially allowed by this Court, we hope that the Government shall grant compensation to all the interested persons whose lands have been acquired under the same notification and pay them compensation in terms of this judgment without any further delay. (iv) Following the principle and the directions stated by this Court in R.L. Jain's case (supra), we grant liberty to the claimants to file applications before the competent authority (State Government/ concerned Collector) to claim damages for their dispossession from the lands owned by them as a result of submerging, till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 4th April, 2002. These applications may be filed within eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. If such applications are filed we direct the competent authority to consider the same sympathetically and award such amounts to the claimants as may be payable in accordance with law expeditiously. We make it clear that the SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.) amounts, if already paid for this period, shall be adjusted. (v) The direction of the High Court for payment of interest for the period prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 4th April, 2002 is hereby set aside and order to be deleted. (vi) The appeals are allowed to the above extent. (vii) Parties to bear their own costs. K.K.T. Appeals partly allowed. c