2017 (7) TMI 1484 - SC - Indian Laws

Land acquisition compensation for agriculturists and fruit trees: 3,671-day appeal delay condoned, higher per-tree rates granted, interest barred

In land acquisition compensation proceedings, the SC held that 'sufficient cause' for a 3671-day delay must be construed liberally to advance substantial ... Declination to condone the delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal - High Court failed to appreciate that the claimants have given satisfactory explanation for the delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal before the High Court - HELD THAT:- On perusal of records, it is seen that the appellants have explained the reason for the delay in filing the appeal stating that they have entrusted the relevant papers to their co-villager namely, viz., Pullaiah who is well-conversant with the court proceedings and the said Pullaiah has also taken steps to engage an advocate at Hyderabad and the said Pullaiah informed that the appeal was filed and left for Kuwait to eke out his livelihood. Thus the appellants/claimants were under the impression that the appeal has been filed - The High Court rejected the explanation given by the appellants on the ground that there are contradictions between the affidavit filed by the said Pullaiah and the stand of the claimants and being not satisfied with the reason for the delay of 3671 days in preferring the appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The term “sufficient cause” is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is attributable to the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay. When the concerned court has exercised its discretion either condoning or declining to condone the delay, normally the superior court will not interfere in exercise of such discretion. The true guide is whether the litigant has acted with due diligence. Since the appellants/claimants are the agriculturists whose lands were acquired and when similar situated agriculturists were given a higher rate of compensation, there is no reason to decline the same to the appellants. Merely on the ground of delay such benefit cannot be denied to the appellants. The interest of justice would be served by declining the interest on the enhanced compensation and also on the solatium and other statutory benefits for the period of delay. Compensation for the pomegranate trees - HELD THAT:- Planting, raising and making commercial use of fruit bearing trees is a painstaking affair and cost of the same is consistently on rise as the years are passing by which is to be kept in view. Award of compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees depends on facts and circumstances of each case. It has been held in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and Ors. [2007 (5) TMI 699 - SUPREME COURT] that 'We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act.' - In the facts and circumstances of the present case and taking into consideration that the appellants were also awarded compensation for the land, it is deemed appropriate to award compensation of Rs. 1500/- for each pomegranate tree. Compensation for lime trees - HELD THAT:- Fresh limes are available throughout the year and have good market and the lime trees are earning income almost throughout the year. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation of Rs. 70/- to Rs. 100/- per tree as against the compensation of Rs. 52/- to Rs. 70/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer - Compensation of Rs. 100/- per each lime tree enhanced to Rs. 250/- is awarded. Compensation awarded to the appellants is enhanced to Rs. 1,500/- for each pomegranate tree and Rs. 250/- for each lime tree. The appellants are also entitled to all statutory benefits like solatium and other benefits and interest on the same. It is further directed that the appellants shall not be entitled to any interest during the period of delay of 3671 days - The appeal is partly allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the delay of 3671 days in filing the land acquisition appeal should be condoned on the facts shown by the claimants, and whether refusal to condone was justified when a comparable matter had adopted a conditional condonation approach. (ii) If delay is condoned, whether the equities should be balanced by denying interest for the period of delay on any enhanced compensation and statutory benefits. (iii) What constitutes just and reasonable compensation for fruit-bearing pomegranate trees and lime trees on the facts of the acquisition, including whether compensation fixed in a later award period could be applied without adjustment. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Condonation of inordinate delay in filing appeal Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court applied the principle that 'sufficient cause' must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, and that a justice-oriented approach is warranted where no negligence, inaction, or want of bona fide is attributable to the litigant. The Court also noted that although discretion on condonation ordinarily is not interfered with, the guiding test remains whether the litigant acted with due diligence. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the claimants' explanation that they had entrusted papers to a person stated to be conversant with court proceedings, were informed that an appeal had been filed, and later discovered that no appeal was filed. The High Court had rejected the explanation as contradictory and treated the delay as not bona fide. The Court held that, in land acquisition affecting agriculturists, omission to adopt 'extra vigilance' should not readily be treated as negligence or lack of bona fides. The Court further held that the High Court was wrong in applying a different yardstick when, in a comparable situation, delay had been condoned subject to denial of interest for the delayed period. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the delay should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, and that mere delay should not defeat the claimants' entitlement to receive compensation on par with similarly situated landholders. Issue (ii): Whether to deny interest for the period of delay Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court considered balancing equities in land acquisition compensation matters by denying interest for the period during which the claimants did not approach the Court, rather than rejecting substantive claims on technical grounds. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the 'interest of justice' would be served by denying interest on the enhanced compensation, as well as on solatium and other statutory benefits, for the period corresponding to the 3671 days' delay. This approach preserved substantive rights while addressing prejudice attributable to the claimants' late pursuit of the appeal. Conclusion: The Court directed that no interest shall be payable for the period of 3671 days of delay, while allowing statutory benefits and interest otherwise in accordance with law. Issue (iii): Re-determination of compensation for pomegranate and lime trees Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court treated compensation for fruit-bearing trees as fact-dependent, noting that planting, raising, and commercial exploitation of fruit-bearing trees involves effort and cost, and that valuation may consider income-related aspects. The Court expressly reasoned that time-gap between different awards is material because costs and income potential change over years. Interpretation and reasoning (pomegranate trees): The Court declined to apply, without modification, a compensation figure awarded in another matter where the relevant award year was about seven years later. It reasoned that a seven-year difference is 'considerable' for computing planting/raising costs and the income a fruit-bearing tree would fetch. Taking the earlier award period into account, and noting that compensation for the land itself was also awarded, the Court fixed a reduced but enhanced figure for pomegranate trees. Conclusion (pomegranate trees): Compensation was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 1,500 per pomegranate tree. Interpretation and reasoning (lime trees): The Court recognised that lime trees have year-round market availability and income potential. Applying the approach adopted in a prior decision discussed in the judgment, the Court assessed annual income-based valuation and enhanced the amount awarded for each lime tree beyond the Reference Court's figure. Conclusion (lime trees): Compensation was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 250 per lime tree. Final relief reflected in the determinations: Compensation for pomegranate and lime trees was enhanced to the above rates; statutory benefits including solatium and other benefits were allowed, with the express direction that no interest would accrue for the period of 3671 days of delay.