Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
Similarly Situated Landowners Shouldn’t Face Discrimination For Grant Of Compensation: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Reducing Compensation Multiplier
|The Appeal before the Supreme Court was filed at the instance of the landowners against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
While granting relief to aggrieved landowners, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Bombay High Court reducing the compensation multiplier. The Apex Court held that in the matter of the grant of compensation, landowners who are similarly situated should not face any kind of discrimination.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed at the instance of the landowners against the judgment of the Bombay High Court disposing of a First Appeal presented by Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “We do not think that in the matter of grant of compensation, landowners who are similarly situate should face any kind of discrimination. Once the respondent has accepted the judgment and order dated 27th November, 2019, the notice of the learned Judge was not invited to such judgment and order and there being no tenable reason assigned for reduction of the multiplier from 15 to 10, we are of the considered opinion that the said judgment and order dated 27th November, 2019, constituted a special circumstance for which multiplier of 15 applied by the reference court should not have been disturbed.”
Advocate V.B. Saharya represented the Appellant, while AOR Pravartak Suhas Pathak represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellants were affected by the subject land acquisition proceedings and had sought a reference before the appropriate court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award was duly made, and the same came to be challenged before the High Court. While the reference court applied the multiplier of 15, the High Court reduced it to 10, considering the decisions of the Apex Court in Bilquis v. State of Maharashtra (2018) and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool District v. M. Ramakrishna Reddy (2011). The appellants had urged interference with the appellate order of the High Court in respect of the reduction of the multiplier applied to the orange trees which were standing on the acquired land.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that in Bilquis (supra), the observation that the reference court ought to have used the 10 years purchase as a multiplier instead adopting 20 years purchase was rendered in the facts and circumstances of the case. This decision, therefore, is not a precedent on the aspect of multiplier. The Bench further noticed that in M. Ramakrishna Reddy (supra), the Court acknowledged the fact that if there exist special circumstances, application of a higher or a lower multiplier could be justified.
The Bench referred to an earlier case where evidence was tendered by an expert from a local agricultural university who deposed that the life of an orange tree could be up to 30 years. These lands were adjacent to the land of the appellants. In respect of the orange trees standing on such adjacent lands, the reference court had adopted 15 years’ purchase and applied the multiplier of 15 while computing compensation. The High Court affirmed the award of the reference court vide a judgment dated November 27, 2019 . The respondent had also accepted the order of the High Court.
The Bench noted that there was evidence before the reference court that the orange trees of the appellants were 3 to 4 years old. As per the Bench, having regard to the evidence of the expert, application of the multiplier of 15 appeared to be a plausible approach. The Bench also highlighted that the Judge of the High Court reduced the multiplier to 10 without being apprised of the earlier decision of the coordinate Bench.
Considering the fact that the respondent had accepted the earlier judgment and order dated November 27, 2019, the Bench held that the said judgment constituted a special circumstance for which multiplier of 15 applied by the reference court should not have been disturbed. Thus, allwoing the appeal, the Bench directed the respondent to pay, within 8 weeks, the balance sum of Rs 1,05,000 to the appellants together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from September 17, 2020 till payment is made.
Cause Title: Saraswatabai Motiram Tayade v. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1022)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates V.B. Saharya, AOR Viresh B. Saharya, Advocates Akshat Agarwal, Rishabh Sahai Mathur
Respondent: AOR Pravartak Suhas Pathak, Advocates Ritu Raj, Aditya Krishna, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate Shrirang B. Varma