Karnataka High Court
Parvathamma vs Spl Land Acquisition Officer on 6 August, 2010
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06"' DAY OF AUGUST 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAiY]ff"'*«S..')..._j..:
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOI0332 OF S
C(W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10:330.-SF 7
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1G3'31"QF 2007 (LAC),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL l\!{3-...3.033'3_,_OF 2007 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO-.._IO.334 OF 200? (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.I0,335) OF 2007 (LAC)
IN MFA 1Q§§2[2QQ7:
BETWEEN:
PARVATHAMMA _. ~ :
W/O KENCHAPPA i _ '
AGED ABOUTSSYEARS I
R/O MALALI VILLAGE
SAKALESHPUR TALUI<'"~, "
HASSAN DISTRICT ; 5T7.3i,134f¥g) V' ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: S K"'\[_EE\:KA"fi;_|§EE?DY;I3.DVOCATE)
SPI, LAND A<:O'uI'SITION4 OFFICE}?
ANDTES»TA'I'E_OFF)ICER« _
NATIONAL H_IGHWAYS,. I<.._R;,CIRCLE
3ANGALO_RE.__--_560 C_:0_1_.-L; ...RESPONDENT
(av SR1: SANGAMESH G PATIL, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
"STiF!«T.S IVIESCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
.5'-4(I_)T.OF._LAIT--I3 ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
_) DATED 33.10.2005 PASSED IN LAC NO.214/2001 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
6/
REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA 1Q§§Q( 2QQ7:
8£TL»3*EErU2
M RAIU
S/O MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O MALALI VILLAGE
SAKALESHPUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT -- 573 134. ...A~ERELfL~.AN'Tf:
(BY SRI: S K VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS _
BANGALORE -~ 560 001 A '_ _ I "._....RESPONDENT
(av SRI: SANGAMESH G PATILI f3OvE--RNNENT'--
ADVOCATE) ..
THIS MISCELLANEOUS" 'FI_RST«.jA.I?P'EAL,IS-FILED UNDER SECTION
54(1) OF LAND ACQuISII*I.G;N ACT AGAINST THE IUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 23.11.2oL5---PASS.ED 'IN, .I,AC.227/20IJI.-ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE ,(SR.DN';).F;V.G HAiSSAN,'~.._PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR1.._CC:MPEE\iSA'"r'IOFé,) AND». SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.'-I -
IN MFA 1933142002; -
§§1°_:'§.&.'9: ,~ «.
S I«;..RAMESH«.;
S/.0 I<RISHN.APPA;-~. A.
AGED AEODT 50 YEARS
R/O MALALI vIL:'.;AG'E_ x =
SAKALESHPIUR TALUK '
= _HASSAN DISTRICT --~ ."s;73L1=I34. ...APPELLANT
I _'
. (BY SRI: SILK \h/ENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
IASRL"LAN.D"ACOUISITION OFFICER
r AN D ESTATE OFFICER
rIATIONA_:; HIGHWAYS
E/F'
K.R.CIRCLE
BANGALORE -- 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: SANGAMESH G PATIL, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTI.ON_
54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ANDT.A_W.AR'D V.
DATED 19.10.2005 PASSED ON LAC 222/2001 ON THEQFILE' 5' '
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWINGIITHEL --
REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION A!\.!D__'SEE"r{I.|\iG
FURTHER ENHANCMENT FOR COMPENSATION. ..
IN MFA 1033312997:
QETDDEE 5
DHARMEGOWDA
S/O VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O MALALI VILLAGE
SAKALESHPUR TALUK I * _
HASSAN DISTRICT -- 573 134. p . '~.._.APPELI.ANT
(BY SRI: S K VENKATA REDD§{,V_AD.yOC_AT_E)*3 ' A ..
AND:
SPL LAND ACQuTISLITION"IOEFI'C;ER
AND ESTATE OFFICER H .
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS . '
K.R.CIRCLE L - «V
BANGALORE ~ 560001; .. V ...RESPONDENT
(BY SF§I:*SANGAM-ESHG PATIL, GOVERNMENT
I ¥'~'3*:VOCf'«TE) A GGGGGG I
_ THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
54(1)~O:==LAND A'CQU.fSITIQN ACT AGAINST THE IUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED "19';-10.2035"PASSED IN LAC 220/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE
7!",ADDITIONAL*CIvILRIDGE (SR.DN.), HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
'._REFERENCE'---..__I=ETITION= FOR ENHANCEMENT IN COMPENSATION AND
-SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.
.Iv;_E_A 1933412097:
« 1.'1a{7"Tu}'§_E,V_f'_U';
._ M N'sHIx/AIAPA
- '_E/O*--NANJEGOwDA
;"
U
AGEDABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O MALALI VILLAGE
SAKALESHPUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT ~ 573 134. ...APPEE_LANT
(BY SRI: S K VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND ESTATE OFFICER
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE -- 560 001. A ..;_RES:PONDENT.I_j;.
(BY SRI: SANGAMESH G PATIL, GOVERNM:ENTf" T.
ADVOCATE) A
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 'IS FILEDv._UF~IDER SECTION
54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THEJUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 19.10.2005 PASSED IN LAC 224/2o0'1.._ON_. THE FILE) OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.D.N.},.._ HAS'SAN;F---PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATID.N"A_ND_ SE_E:<INGf ENHANCEMENT FOR
COMPENSATION. A ' . =
IN MFA 1953512907: I _ - '
QE1'o~'>E''r; '.1 ' A '
RANGAPPA = ~ «
S/O KRISHNAPPA _ _ 4:,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS-:;_.. M
R/O MALALI VILLAGE' ' '
SAKALESHPUR TALUK A
HASSAN DISTRICT '~.-057.3 13:4. . V ...APPELLANT
(BY SR1: S K VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
ANIDVJO ~. A
STATE OF T|I<IA'RNAT,AKA" "
BY sPL'LIAN-D ACQUISITION OFFICER
" NATIONAL. HI13HWAY$f_
I ESATIGALORE-..7 550- 001.; ...RESPON DENT
W{BY SRI5 SAINGAMESH G PATIL, GOVERNMENT
A ADVOCATE)
,II'|'AHIIS-- MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
-I"5.4(I).--'OF":,AND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DA'TED_?2_37.11.2OO5 PASSED IN LAC 219/2001 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
3,
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE
PETITION FOR ENHANCEMENT IN COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
FURTHER ENHANCMENT FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR
DICTATING JUDGMENT BEFORE THE COURT THIS DAY, THE COURT.
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : -
COMMON JUDGMENT
Miscellaneous First Appeal 10332/2007 Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition Act a"gailVfst'~ and award dated 19.10.2005 the file of Additional Civil gqdge tléssén, "partly allowing the reference L4.""e':n.h:a'n_cement of compensation and _:'se_ekin-g'"" Of compensation.
2. Miscel--laLneoVusLfiutstt_ApVpe.aL|..-~10330/2007 is filed under Section 54(1) ofl"_~an'o'AcqLii_siVti'on Act against the judgment anj'd"awarvcl_:':'da:ted ~2n3.11If20'G'5V passed in LAC 227/2001 on the file ofg_L_theL_Prl.:'CiVvi.l"3.l:l:dge (Sr.Dn.) I-iassan, partly allowing the iifclvaim petition for'i'c.g:rnpensation and seeking enhancement of » _I.iconjpensatio'n. , fit'
3. Miscelianeous First Appeai 10331/2007 is filed under section 54(1) of Land Acquisition Act against the judgmwent and award dated 19.10.2005, passed in LAC 222/2od1js5di the file of Additional Civii 3udge (Sr.Dn.), Hassafi'; tpartriiyi ' aiiowing the reference petition for-""'renha-incewmeintof. compensation and seeking furtherxfe'n_h'anciem:ent «. compensation.
4. Miscellaneous FirstVAppeat,1'0é3'.?/2»007 fi'i*ed-'tinder Section 54(1) of Land Acquiiisiition"'Ac§tV::ag:a.i"nst.the judgment and award dated 19.atzoozssaseeaiiiiae 22.0/2001 on the file of the Addii:i'on:ga.|V Hassan, partiy aliowing the -A for enhancement in compensation enhancement for covmpensat;ji'o'n;.
First Appeai 10334/2007 is fiied under A'"»....5ection'S'?i(1)V_oiietailnd Acquisition Act against the judgment 'award dated 19,10.2005 passed in LAC 224/2001 on the {~.'_VVVfi|«e Additional Civii Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hassan, partiy 2/'
--J atlowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement for compensation.
6. In this judgment, parties wiil be referred reference to the status in the reference Court.
7. The brief facts of the case of:-th'e'«-ciaimantsdare' as unden _ H The iand situated in Ma|a|iVf\1i,.igiag}e, Hassan, was acquired by thetand,A'cau'i--s'i'ti»on Officer for the purpose of Sakleshpur Bypass Dreliminary notification was 11_,9;i«:9--97 &;(i) Notification was Acquisition Officer was passedfon .Land Acquisition Officer awarded R_s.v26,Vx2"O»0[~ .pe--.r fa-r;sre'~."ffV Not being satisfied with the afwarcl the V"La'nd'Acquisition Officer, the ctaimants sorr'g.ht":for..the matter to the reference Court O "»....seeking' enhancement of compensation. The reference Court ..%.f.f'_;'awa:.ded compensation of Rs.1,09,000/- per acre. gr./K'
8. The sum and substance of the finding of the reference Court is as under:
The State Government has acquired the foiiowing belonging to the claimants situated at Malali Village:,:'*Kas'a'Taai Hobli, Sakieshpur Taluk, for the V.:pur.p.ose'_"
Sakaleshpura By-pass Road vide preiiminary dated 11.9.1997. The survey nurnb..e'r',V_%exteiit,_ navtu-.re's.;o'f*tI1'e iands acquired are as under:,.--. LAC No. Sy.£\|o._*- _ |\'a't'u"re":
Date of taking possession 214/01 i4sJ=8 '*1.vvét' .5 = guntas 17.8.00 216/01 ~ ~ ' ~ 21:73:' ~.~_ "
'~\\ 7 "
guntas 218/01 23973, 1 1 1 :_ :115'*9?:7.
-243/6._*;z '2:4_3/5 ' .
cu"
4 11 1
1 & 30 guntas 25.9.00 .220/01.
*113/2v-
\\ 20 guntas 25.7.00 2.07/1v& "-sggggzxz;
14 15 & 22 guntas 19.7.00 224/01*» '113[3 \\ 24 guntas 25.7.00 7;f"e228/01» 1923 1 acre 12 guntas 4.9.00 9,3173/1 \\ 8 guntas 19.7.00 .--;;230¢01 ac» 232/o1«, 145 38 guntas 25.7.00 ':34/01-! 175/2 07 guntas 18.8.00 125f»_238/Q1 216/1 & 261/1 \\ 13 & 9 guntas 29.8.00 32,,/' The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value at Rs.26,200/-- per acre by his award N0.LAQ.i-lassan.CR'-- 2/97-98 dated 30.10.1999/17.1.2000. The ciaimants~fiiav'e_:'*._ accepted the award under protest and filed petitions requesting the Land Acquisitioncfficeif' petitions to the Civil Court. Considering Land Acquisition Officer has referredfithpe m'atte'r.VVAt'(")._:
Court. V if 'C V The reference Court points:
i) Whether Court answer the refe--ren;cé? . '
ii) gvthféfifcnifrett reéik'et value of the acquiired wed?' it A
iii) Forwahatp ord_ei;or atvtra rd?
eviderice.._was recorded in LAC 214/01 for all theucas.és.-~. in LAC 224/2001 has given evidence hirr1s.elfanfdfitjhe'claimant in LAC 220/01. The General _fl~..IFfovi:er of Attornev holder of the claimant in LAC 218/2001, 7_'_'andilotfheraclaimants were examined as PWs.1 to 10 and one 'V.'jg-w__i_'t'nesV's; as PW.11 and have produced 3 documents marked .§_/X' 10 as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. No evidence has been adduced by the State. The reference Court answered the above points unden Point No.1 --- Yes.
Point No.2 -- Rs.1,09,000/- per acre."M Point No.3 --- As per the finai order." "
Pa ra--1 1 and 3.2 of the judgme_nt.._of the 'referencej reads as under:
This point is pertains Before answering the refei*e.nc_e confirm its jurisdiction by is in time or not.
The LAO An"oti'cVes in aii the cases, except in on 25.9.2000 in other cases the_LAO notices but the particulars about. ofAserv'ice*"has not been furnished. In the refere__n'i;e requested to consider that date of vk.n'o£(wiedge of award, therefore on its basis
--«.i.i'.L'3?¢ri1.ov»iiedge offaward wili have to be inferred. Payment and X44'*--.V.fi|'i.n'g~V'of _prctest petitions in aii the cases are as foilowsz L/' 11 LAC No. 12(2) Payment 18(1) No. of signed date date days 214/01 15.7.00 17.8.00 16.10.00 Within 90 days 1......
216/O1 " " 19.10.00 " 1 _ 218/01 Served on 26.9.00 16.10.00 2"» ' 25.9.00 220/01 15.7.00 25.7.00 " 1"' 222/01 " 19.7.00 " l 224/01 25.7.00 25.7.00 " W 228/01 30.8.00 4.9.00 ' 230/01 19.7.00 19.7.00 "
232/01 24.7.00 25.7.00 *' 234/01 18.8.00 18.8.00.-' 238/01 29.8.00 29.8.00 * "
N0 contrary evidencei--s,_adduc'ed.its/u"t.h_e L2\O"'to"'Vshow that, the protest petitions are _a_b'arre§diiiVi.n:.i:ta't_ion though such a contention hasaiaeenfig raised..._°I~n_gyiew' of the above protest petitions5-fi'le'd._V§/1;i't't1_in references are in time and this;_Coui't has'j-uriisd'i'cti'on to answer the reference. The reference /Court h'asi""mentioned that PWs 1 to 10 bi/j"'f'il'ing tiheir..,*-aff'ivd,avitHevidence have narrated to the effect "!a'rl.d are situated within the limits of WV i"ASa.kaleshp_uVr V. . municipality, having 6/ non~agricultural
-.h.l.gjot.er1t,iality. " Within 200 meters limits of acquired lands, {civi-l "'arn.e'ni'At'ies such as Post Office, KEE-3 Office, Cinema . 'f7a'i--!%.i:es,__.iPetrol Bunk, Schools, Police Station, Bus Stand and 352 market etc. are situated. The acquired lands were having non--agricuEtura| potentiaiity being situated nearest to th--eg cieveioped extension of Sakaieshpur town. On Puttaraju had soid piot measuring 30 x 30 feet -- S.N.Ramamurthy in Raghavendra Nagar'ami_ayiOUt«._ of it, the saie deed is produced at Ex.:P»1 to.»',_$h"o'w. Eocation of properties, the Viiiage i\iiai~a_i_i"is..'.=pro.dvuced at Ex.P2. Vendor of the.p~s.g't at"i§a'g'iiaVye_ndra'Nagvara is PW11~Puttaraju. He narrated hiisi'a'ffi_d:aVyAi_t;.evidence that the saie of piot in favour of S.N.Ramamurthy Layout on 4.4.1996 was for Rs.:v32i'.'0Ot):.[i¢:. .A:'::Efi'e :has"aiso'V"Cie§posed that acquired lands were town, situated 200 feet awayV_fron1xit-he' ad';t,iAiAi*,'%(Ii""LiVai'ICfS. Raghavendra Nagara cornes wiithini--tithegtmunici"p'ai' limits of Sakaieshpura, wherein within the Maiaii Viliage. In his ' "»._..ciross~exannination'. has stated that Maiati is 3 km. away
-ii_if_jfro_n*.._Sakaleshpura town. PW.11 admits that there are no imfaciiitiesjyprovided by the Maiaii Grama Panchayath as by the Sakaleshpura municipaiity. Thus the 6"//' 13 evidence of PW.11 speaks that the plot sold was in a developed area and acquired lands were located {in undeveloped area outside the limits of municipality, The reference Court has also obs:e__rve_d,ti1ait_the"'cros:s; examination that PWs 1 to 10 hasitbroughlttout Vthat'%iYiai.aVliVV 1.25 k.m. away from Sakaieshpura brought out that the adjoining lanVd's_z':"wei3e- ;stiil"~--..¢uit'i~i.r_ated and no iayouts were formedt Cinema Talkies, Petrol Bus Stand, market, etc. municipai limits of Sakaleshpuriaiand "ii-lemavathi River flows in between Sakaléeshpu,raVV"to'w.n viiiage. Thus in the crgoss-ex3.n%j€inva'tion it h.Vasv'_'_cl'e:arly explained that the acquired laAnd_s»At:hough,s: situated abutting to nationai highway it is an undeve.io'lp.e'dx"ar.ea comes within Grama Panchayath V'*I__limits and""3til"l:cultivation is going on in the said land due to .1 iiininteri'up,tedVV"supply of water throughout the year. The Land V'A'.vW;:Acqi.iisitiontOfficer though refers the potentiaiity of the lands 2/' W to form sites, so far no layout were formed and houses were built. The reference Court has also held that the Landy Acquisition Officer has rightly treated the acquired pure agricultural wet lands.
The reference Court at para--Z2lAAlVof"th"e observed that claimants have relied on 4Ex.:P1 sale'..'dé:edZ if the market value is to be fixed by on allowing the deduction to oAfV16A5°7a, the value per acre of land The reference Court judicial--:.i~i2otice'--1.of.thefact that the lands were not acre even as on the date ofjudgn_1ent*. oral evidence adduced by the claimants,' 'their Lan'd_ .'4i"<v.('2(jl:j:'i"'5:»tlt4'i(V)n Officer has not entered into the ywlitnsess bloxfltvo explain the factors, which were con_sidereld l_j:ywA..%lii4Vrn.._while passing the award. The Land Acqulsitioniidffilcer thoiugh referred 17 sale instances of wet lands but"'fixeVd. the market value at Rs.26,200/~ referring to of aland at one instance on 27.6.1997. This itself £/ rv lb speaks of the award of Land Acquisition Officer as improper and without appreciating the materials. The reference Court at para-24 of the impugned,' judgment observed that admittedly there were sales«~~i.n_,'uth_e'.j' village but no sale deed pertains to the sale of..a,g'r--i..cuitural it lands. The claimants were growing C|'Q[)S,b,1'Jif no'1'rr'ra:te.riia,l's'V_A_gt} are produced to that extent andV,r~therefot_e,"-- it is,V.p.rope'r t"o"
proceed under capitaiisation method'}'i'».V.:.l'\io expert ',_is*.exa:'mined or report of the expert is of Vtheflabove settled law proper adequate,"co_mpCehS§at;~p\,,'.A',,5?i,lC|'.'..i1ave to be fixed when the the Court has to 'judgments of this Court pertaining to'fs--irnilaVr Taluic Pertaining to similar lafiids of Sak'a'leshpu'ra town covered under same 4(1) n'oi:iVfi.Acati.oVn acquired for the purpose of Sakallesfhriura' By--pass, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed con"ipens.ati'on at Rs.60,000/- per acre with regard to .1 -..:wet'r.,,|arrd.$. V"Pertains to the said lands, references were this Court in LAC 171, 176, 183, and 184 of 95, Ex' l Q wherein this Court after considering the evidence had determined the correct market value of the wet iands;"a.t Rs.82,000/- instead of Rs.60,000/-- per acre by its V. dated 26.1 1.2004.
The reference Court has also >oVbserveo"'~V-th~at"'l~:tl1--e acquired lands were situated outside the toirlgriséhio,i..'W-he'reri._n at the escalation of prices will not be -the some as the V lands within the town limits. int and circumstances, the referencia "feLlr"A:'~.r_Q allloiiv the depreciation of 5% each ~ x 5% x 6'/2 years woul4d3-_.:c4o'r§ri:e__.' the market value as acquisition comes to Rs.82,800/-- »~4'~:---:§:"_.»r.i?4.4s'..1,O9,710/~ rounded of to R.s,.1,09,Q.(%i{€)/~ar.. is held that the correct market \./alue land is Rs.1,09,000/~ per acre instead of The reference Court also held that the clain5'ants:"a':'"e entitled for the benefits under Section and 28 of Land Acquisition Act.
1'?
9. Aggrievecl by the same, the appellants have preferred these Appeals before this Court.
10. E have heard the learned senior counsel claimants and also the learned Government have also perused the reference Court re_ro.rds.
11. It is the contention of the leaérned.seniorf.i,co'unsei"' that the reference Court has erred'"'i«n:"'relying"the passed in 171, 176, 183 bylvthelvvlllcidl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hassan, 'vvAhic,h':l of the record in the insta'nt.V,:,.'case. g --Vliearrn'ed-i..c_o.unsel for the appellants halsllalllso evilvdlevnce of PWs 1 to 10 is clear about fact land is situated within the municipal lirn'its,_:'of..Saldeshlpur, having non--agricultural p<1j'terstialitv:'w.l.thin._20tirnetlers of the acquired lands and nearer "to.ifcivi'c.._%avrne_ri'ities such as Post Office, KEB office, iv.V"€inema T.heatr.es,'§,Petrol Bunk, Schools, Police Station, Bus jtvop,-».market,.V__Aetc. Learned counsel for the appellants also 'C1,,4{'sVubrnitted_ltrthat Ex.P1-Sale Deed dated 4.4.1996 was before the reference Court with respect to a plot 3/ £5?
measuring 30 x 30 soid by PW11~Puttaraju in favour of S.N.Ramamurthy in Raghavendranagara Layout for __._a vaiuabie consideration of Rs.3-4,000/-. The said sale not taken into consideration and appreciated by the A ' Court. He further submits that Ex.P2,~Vii.iage_'_'m'a"p':'.if;iea'riy~_ shows that the acquired land is abutting'.'_'Cti'éVe Town, within 200 feet from the iai':vdL"so_id u'nd:fei*i t"a;A>§§,i$i«i.:"iTh;~é aspect has not been considered by Vt.h.eV:A'ifeference "Court...E It is on record that the award of Officer is passed reiying upon'theawiard"passed}byuvtheif:i5rincipai Civii Judge (Sr.Dn.), if_ias;=;.=an:>..\i~iiitIr.._i_"esp.eci:"toVvthe"acquired land in sy.No.319/oi of ind 't;):iCt£No.217/2001 in the same notificavtiony. per acre, i.e. at Rs.26/-- persq. _":I"he_'.Spe_ciVa'i;VLand Acquisition Officer has rejfe'rred E>:c:.P1§ASaAie"D'eeVd dated 4.4.1996 to pass the award__ ft. The same method has not been Ziffoiiowed' thefreference Court in the instant case. The fTrefere,nce Court ought to have enhanced compensation rate of Rs.26/~ per sq. ft. i.e. at Rs.11,32,560/~ . He further submits that the reference Court ought / .> ii/'
-I'?
to have awarded compensation atleast at Rs.2,50,000/~ per acre as restricted in this appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied"'o--n.i'Vt.h§':7 following decisions in support of his contentions:
The case of REVENUE o1vIsIoNAl..-ioi?i%I'cEii'~{:ti:§f L..A.O. v/s. SHAIK AZAM sAHE.B_ reporteti irri',:'AI.1g,V 2009 sc 1914, wherein the Home Cat;-.irt"haSV'3 held thus: "
"Land Acquisition Act__V_(:l'1»._ - Compensation . *4a._Q'~eter'mina.tion '#"'.Acq_u:Vifred land situated ab€out"51KM_Vs§' a_w__éy_ town abutting National - haying requisite potential 'site -- Educational institutiolnsllsiiirroi.indinq"'acquired lancl ---- vicinity surroundinga"la_ndwas".well developed - Market fi§éed»--...at' Rs.1,2S,00O/- per acre - Vtiu.rlAth.er:tir~:.a_t 10 per cent escalation per year A"has"_to1 b'e:"'addédi*:in respect of acquired land which was..44:'Vabuttin;t3-National Highway and which was
7._'more developed comparatively."
tase of CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS. v/s. ADDL. ' Sl~?ECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER reported in AIR 3.0 2009 SC 3012, wherein the Hon'bie Supreme Court heid thus:
"The High Court shouid not deprive the ciaimant~s.'44"A' of their rightful claim of compensation on technicaf ground of want of requi__si.te__Courtmfees» C' and an opportunity should be af:favord:e.dA.fitolthéeim for payment of the deficit Court feed"? The case of K KRISHNA Reoofifusg' ORS."V;'Si;_"iH$f; SPECIAL ov. CQLLECTQR, ;L%A'i\i'oii_A'CQu1s1'rioi§i UNIT 11, LMD KARIMNii\GARy'wAEN:DH:--Riix"_»PvRADESH reported in AIR _1988""SCf': the Hon'b|e Supre_nie:gCoVurt:'--hais "Land _A¢q'trjy§iti'dp;1_ s.23 --
Compe.nsa_tiorrj'V_-.V-3:n?.ij§e~te'r~@inat§on --~ Appeiiate Court'sV"-power 'tC*aAf)Fd€--!TT'i'Cmafld -- Not to be exercised xiig_VhtEyVwiand',uniess evidence is totally iaci<"i.r_§iA'c_;" Awards: should be passed speedily .°'App'eai dos} ~2__S78~8H3" of 1985 dated 30.12.1985 _(A._i3:?)'Re°.£erSed:."_:{Civii pc. (1908), o.43 Rufe 23, _ Interfe renc'e)"."
23A)'ri(Appe?cji*at}eCourt -- Land Acquisition award - Q/, §.f The case of CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS V/S. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, POONA AND ANR. reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652 "(A) Land Acquisition Act (1894), S.23 ---- Land -- Vaiuation -- Land, iarge block of agricultural iar*§d"' far in the interior in the midst of biocks.y.A'_:'ofVV:'AiV"
undeveloped land -- Deduction of ZIJSA5/¢"o«nr_ grroijrrid I of iargeness of biock -- Justified ---?A1'De'p_re'ssingyyiof _ vaiuation on premise that"dey_eiopmenty reach after 12 years -- Not opVenfl'to_Vchaiienige Further depressing h"ow«eve'r',W V'V'w_arranted;"' Decision of Bombay High _Courtf3'»p:art'|'yV:%_Reversed. (Acquisition -- Va|uatiorr'"----iigandg,Iarg_e['b.i'ock of agricuitural H ..ofr"-brlrocks of undeveiopedi' De-'pr_essingWof valuation on premiséxythat dei/e.l'opm.e'nt,_'would reach after 12 years -- '"Proper. --Q "§*?u..a*ther depressing not wargranted).
Inijvtheisame judgment at paragraphs 15 to i"1._7',-i'.tVhie"'i~io~nfb~i.eSupreme Court has held thus:
"15.u"Th'ey ex"/aluation of these factors of course I .:dependVs" on the facts of each case. There cannot '"<pe--.a"ny hard and fast or rigid ruie. Common sense is the best and most reiiable guide. For g/ aé instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq.yds cannot be compared with a Earge tract or block of land of say 10,000 eq.yds. or more. Firstly while a smalier plot is within the reach of many, a largef' block of land will have to be developed preparing a lay out, carving out..roa.d,s, open space, plotting out smaller piots,1'w.a'itii1.glfor purchasers (meanwhile theViinyestedmoneyV.vwiil," . be blocked up) and the''--v,:h--azards'~~_Vof_'.:an'a; 0' entrepreneur. The factor can-------b.e,v~d'i'scoun'teci...,by/1 making a deduction by 'way_o'f,aij' at an appropriate rate rangingVV_appro>§__.V to 50% to accou:nt':for.lari.d apart for carving :_out' a'nc:iV..,_;_)_l'iottingiifout small plots. The dislcounAti'rig~willi.to*«.s'orn_e. extent also depend on whether. it or urban area, whether bui_l%divngl-__acti§/ity' is picking up, and whetjjertiwaiting-period during which the capital a"of_t¥ie en'trep.reneur wouid be locked up, will be _l_.o"r:_ge'r.. 0:i'5C(:=.'l'j..and the attendant hazards. Minus fa._cto.rs"
Largeness of area.
0' if_'2.: Situation in the interior at a distance from the "road. , 52/ £3
3. Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.
4. Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.
Remoteness from developed locality.
6. Some special disadvantageous A>factor_~whifc:h:"~x' would deter a purchase.
16. Every case must be d.eal.t witlhaoh its fact pattern bearing in mind a'l'l"i-these fac't~o_rsias a):
prudent purchaser ofland in.i'whiVch'VVpo.sition"'t~he"V Judge must place himséi--ff._
17. These are-g'eneralwgu'i_d::elinesj:to ibkfe. 'applied with unde_rst«andA;i:ng "ll'.f_Oi'l.'}"led ifjwithw common The ease. ' DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIT'Y'--.._gV/S. -_KR.ISil.i\hiA GOPAL LAHORI & ORS.3;reportedV"in._,AIR 2008 st: 399, wherein the iitHon"bleE"S'up"reme has held thus:
i'*La'i%.q.' "Acr1_tl_isil:.tio"n Act (1 of 1894), s.23 ~-- Acqu.lsiti__-oncoimpensation -- Deductions towards "-.develop.rnent charges ~-- For agricultural land or V' 'fundeveloped iand which has potential value for . houising or commercial purposes -- Normally the Q/, 3.4' deduction is 1/3'" amount of compensation - It may vary depending on its nature, location, expenditure involved etc. - Fact that an area is T developed or adjacent to a developed area in it Does not ipso facto make every land situat.eCl_""i~-np in area also developed, particularly,""when, tracts are acquired."
The case of THE AGRICULfL5VRALV.PRO*DU'Cl§";f""' MARKET COMMITTEE, BY ITS VsEcfRE'rA,RY &"AN,R._:§ v/s. THE Ass1s'irANT ;,jeoi~1.r«iv1ss1oNER, CHIKKODI & ons. repo'rted._I'L'R: 2;oe4v'i<Ajlea24o, wherein the dj.v'isi_o'yn Bench of th,is7C~ou"rt"Vjhas held thus:
"(c) LANoiACQu1s1i,fi"zon.ACT,' 18921 - SECTIONS 23, 54 = ' or LAND «~ DETERM'Ii\lA'T]O'N'*~ (V)'r'~i.'A'cC:5'P,c,lilE.lCT MARKET VALUE or --,19u_ty 'of..theV.Cou-rt'; HELD - The Court is "'«..,req-ui"i~*e;,l.o,:to._detelrnrine' the correct market value after, tai_<ing..,,iall_._the relevant circumstances and 1"cEea.rlyV"a:p_plyiVrjg""its mind whether there is any distl_ngu_is'h_i;ri~gA factor from each one of the sale "v.,,transactiAon of comparable lands relied upon by if_'~tlhelgpartles in support of their claim for ldeltermination of market value of the lands A ..._acqutred. /if 3.5 The case of V.R. MANJUNATH & ORS. V/S. SPECIAL LANE) ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
reported in ILR 2005 KAR 4320, wherein the division Bench of this Court has held thus:
"(c) LANE) ACQUISITION ACT, 1895; - Award deduction of value of amenities as 3:3p.T1[3""/o " A Principle in Basant Kumar's case - applies Wi'1.'EV:_:f(-j_I" . 2 C' A' large extent of land is acc;uiVre(§\~_% acc{ui,red_'Via'-rid"~.,;""* is 1,00,473.03 square feet wh_i_ch__is.._»a compact ii block and can be 'u__tiiisec.i_'A wit'i'.o_u.t:'aforming individual sites----princip|ef. s :'VcEed.u-ct.io'n_i__ of amenities does .n:otv..appi§V/H"I; A A V
13. Learned submits that Ex.P.1--sa|e deed situated within the municipal limits_o'i sSa'klVesAh'pu"r~..§fow'n and the land in question is situatedwin \..I:ilIa~Q'*e 'which comes under the Gram Papnchrayathfi. 2,)"Th'e.reforel"mE>t.P.1 cannot be relied upon. In support ._o\fVA'hi:sf.c'0Ant.ention, he relies upon the decision in C'f'R'ANvIRS.1Nc;_H~S§jANR v/s. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR SC 3316.35', wherein at para 29 of the judgment the
7._'V"'virion:.'bi.e'Supreme Court has held thus:
Q6 "While adopting the said method, in our opinion, the High Court committed manifest errors. The market value of fuiiy deveioped iand cannot be compared with whoiiy underdeveloped land aithough they;~~----"' C' C may be adjoining or situated at a iittie distance. For determining the market i' C. it is trite the nature of the C V important roie." C' it it
14. Learned Government the impugned judgment and reference Court in the absence of vmate.ria!._evideén.ce'xavnVd:".t,aiiing judiciai note of the Vttdidetermine the market value'. iiii he relies on the decision of sHIMg"s1N'e.iéi STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. reportedcggin $382.
"'v..15;.c._"'Ag:g-erghearin'g "" "the Learned counsei for the iearned High Court Government 7i>it-»»..,a.vdvocate,,_Vthe~ .ciuestion that arises for my consideration in ...C,C'.tvh'ese.gappe'ais* is whether the reference Court in not Ex.P1 - saie deed is proper or not ?
2?.
16. The sum and substance of the evidence of PWs.1 to 11 is as under:
Evidence of PWs. 1 to 10 is more or less on lines. They have stated in their evidence that they-._:are'_iith'e"% claimants and they are the owners of"iIAand«il_n7;quesyt'ion_oF7' Malali village of Sakaleshpur taluk._ Thefs_aid_xlancF.:hi3'S'v acquired by the Special Land Acq'uis"i-t.ion."Office.r,:".: Highway, Bangalore for const'ru_ctio'rii"ot"hi3a!tai'eshpurVByeepass road in LAQ/Hassan/CR/2/97l--'V§'ii3'V'dated The notice under sectiQni'}t1£V(VL;_) Act was published on 14.;=;ii199y7i*and thLfe._n'oti't:eRtinder section 6(1) of the Land Atquieitiethliha;:f'viesf§ubiis~hed on 19.11.1998 and the award was 'pa__4ssedV"o_n& They have also stated that the ,,a_ig§quii.reci Iéndfiisg within the limits of Sakaleshpur Mu~niclpa!.,ity _jaAn%d.4vA:"*th_e said lands have non--agricu|tural potentiafilhtyiaVvfidV'A_'al_| civic amenities. The post office, KEB toffice, Cinernaiyyltailkies, petrol bunk, schools, police station, .1 market etc. are within the limits of 200 meters "acquired land. Sy. No.32O is situated in 539 Raghavendra Nagar. The acquired lands are nearer to the developed extension area of Sakaleshpur town. The Ianvdse are suitable for development for non--agricu|tura| The acquired iands have non~agricultural potentia.li__tv'.~--.:. % sale deed dated 4.4.1996 executed favour of S.N. Ramamurthy for RsV.e34;,OOO;5-hllpertainingttot' 30: T feet x 30 feet plot in Raghavelndira 'Nagar ""'la.9y--o'L{t'VVVVVin Sakaleshpur taluk and the ma:A['3"~~are AThevVvpray for grant of Rs.28,000/ - per 'AA;5Ve'lr'.'square feet for their lands. V
17. Duringii;Vro:s_s;geVx.a'mi4n'a.ti.on"of APEVW'-1, he states that there are sti|Vl»._su=rveyv Vriufirnljeirsl'to'"'th'e"acquired lands and they have not been Adjacent to the acquired lands, crops we»i'éé. vVb_eing orown__.____. No lay-out has been formed.
Some' ofthwe .laiid's.?b"elonging to Malali village come within the i..AA_jnrisdictio'n'ol'lSVa.kal,eshpur Municipality. P\.Ns..22 to 8 in their cross-examination have given A'-»._°sa'm.e--.,ans»vers as that of PW-1 in his cross-examination. an Cross~examination of PWs.1 to 8 was adopted by the learned Government Pleader in respect of PWs.9 and 10.
19. PW»-11 has stated in his evidence by way affidavit that his land is situated in Raghavendran3Vat]'a"i'V--'§'i:i'i..T Sakaieshpur taluk. That on 4.4.1996 the has soI'd~o[:iei'sitreV if R measuring 30 feet x 30 feet ford'-._a ;'ce.nsi'd»e'r'ati'cn"lief' Rs.34,000/- to one Sri Ramamurthyf«--..__.Accg"u-i.red Vlan'ciiAs.'ja.i:;oi::'t 200 feet away from the land him.
Raghavendranagar comes {_»'_thé-Vfj:iuifisdiction of Sakaleshpur Town Municii3a!itY"'efi§i 'thi<f"i'F._e"~iar€2:i'a»l"'ilsfaciiities at Raghavendranagg';1r.§'-.. 2
20. Duriind._croslseexarnifnationy Pw--11 admits that he purchased the site *wVhichA?was"llV mentioned in Ex.P1 in the a_-action condeggcited byAAthev------E*i'E«u'nicipaiity. There is no connection betVwee'n'T_tiie"acc;uiireVd'--.land and the land which he sold. The llyiaynd sold comes within the jurisdiction of .rf_S,,a44i§ai,eshpur fawn Municipality. The land which is acquired .wlt'hin the Malali village panchayath. It is about 3 ' ~:i<H_ometlers away from Malali viilage. The civic: amenities J V 3 ll not adduced evidence or produced any saie deed pertaining to the adjacent land of the acquired land, in my view, iii:'is,. not proper to remit the matter back to the reference this stage. Under these circumstances, I am cOfi.S:f_r'a,iVneld to it rely on the oral evidence of PWs.1;:to jg, claimants and also the evidence of one ofthe parti"es.v'of the" V sale deed. As stated earlier, saie the developed area and that too iné§<."Px1 was acquired by way of no other materials, I am cos_'istrai1'nved:i-.toireiy saie deed to determine the ma_Vrket';rvaiu"e» oftihei acquired iands.
22. arises for my consideration is what is the'VV'ia,mouVnt.'.of:_ "deduction that has to be done towards v_»diave_lopVmeVntal:icharges in the case on hand. The 'main_ly relied on the judgments of previous cases. the market value. In support of this, iglearned for the respondent has reiied on the decision Honfblle Supreme Court in the case of BHIM SINGH ' s'ijATé or HARYANA reported in AIR 2oo3 sc 4382. It 1 3Q is the contention of the Learned counsel for the appellants that no opportunity has been given to the appellant to rebut or to test the veracity of the previous judgments relied by the reference Court. It is his contention"thaétégiidieré said judgments cannot be relied upon._~~BI._I_tAit accept the said contention of the learned Syenlvorlllcoviunlseglll the appellant in view of the Apex rulirigV_reported..;in"AI'R 2003 SC 4382 wherein the i+i.on'bley...Su1p.rem'e held as under: A __ x V "(A) Land AcqLii'sivtion:=Act-fl"of"'r._18.9_4)i; 153.23 ~-- Compensation ~é~}rD_ete:i*mina'tion._o'f,"on" basis of earlierzgjudygimeints Court erred in not taking' account while fixing compensa'ti_o-n .V--VV"C_oVrn_pe.'r:i.sation already fixed by _ Hig"h.;'Co.urt earilierviproceedings and Supreme . V."-Court' ?--.in one proceeding has already fixed - Best method would be to Hlookratvv.th'ejea'rlier judgments and Awards and not sale~--ins.t:ances - High Court cannot be faulted for 'l'*»havin§i~~fixed compensation on the basis of earlier ts. " E', as
23. There is no fixed rule about what is the deduction that has to be worked out while determiningVV.th_er._V compensation amount in respect of agricultural |and_;'W'i1«etn--..i!t5 is compared with the sale deed pertaining to _a...defv.elol;§edA 3 land that too which was acquired by waytof aiuictionfig' 4' '
24. In the case of K. vAsuNoi§R.A oE'v1._g.vs_.l' *i3E"€EE\i'UE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (LAO), reported in. (:995)S' 'S-CCVE426, the Hon'ble Supreme Court .4 "Land Acquisit_i'lori':;:;§tct, Vaijuation of land for c0iT4ii3'é:2.i1.sati'o.n: '--'l When sale deeds ofr-srnlallerl':iiI§A:ece*sj'.'gof'land-.ava"e found to be genuine and s'uf_ficient-' deduction should be madeto "atrriv'e_.éat[irna'r.i§:et"Value of large tracts of lanVd_v- 4o'*ee'r cent d*.ed'u'ction by the High Court _ '_ uph_elid.':'__lA' iinlliceee of BASAVVA .vs. SPECIAL LAND
7.:AcQuIsI*ri.oN;eorrftcER reported in AIR 1996 sc 3168 the "~i?iio'n.(biegsgupremiie Court has held as under:
E'//g .34 "Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.23 --~ Compensation -~ Determination -- Deduction for deveiopment charges up to 53% is vaiid -- Land acquired, capable of deveiopment but considering the fact that deveiopment of iand wouid ha\/.e"':V:"'-~27 taken years, High Court deducting 12% more_ife. C"
65% -- Order of High Court is ,,,,rationai'*"a..n:dC'. justified."
26. In the case of Lucmowiiis ,'oEvi:;o'PMeN*r'tt.ii"V, AUTHORITY .vs. KRISHNA GOPAL"L,i§{iviORIV.repo'rte'dxi'nm\AIi§ 2008 SC 399, the Hon'ble Supreme,viC'ou-rtjphiasheldas"u'nder:
"16. It cannot, however,f'be*V--.;ai'd __.dio~i?ii.n,'a.s an absoiute'%"p'roAp.o.siti'o§:gq"'thiattthe "rates fixed for the smaii pi-ots ca'nnotI'V'b.e for fixation of the rate. For exa'n1p'i'e,,»-Where there is no other matei'iai,,it maiyxinappropriate cases be open to «.,_thev-Viaidjudicating Coi;i'r"t'to make comparison of the prices p.ai'd :for's_maii piots of land. However, in i'szic'h._V,«c'as'es__ 'riecessary deductions/adjustments haveto made whiie determining the prices. sunjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer 7 sh'oui.d be allowed. On the other hand no unjust 3:
deprivation on the part of the owner is also to be allowed.
21. The deduction to be made towards it development charges cannot be proved in strait-jacket formula. It would depend upon__t_h~e l facts of each case."
27. In this case, the claimant has'-not addyuceydi ' evidence except marking Ex.P1 land" ~!'l1én:t-ioniedlwflin Ex.P1 was acquired by the owner the Municipality. Long after the acquisition. As sta't'e':ji.t:learliier,a:I:"do"inotf*w.a.ritto remit the matter back to :'the.::_referengéfjcourt' a*.'jte'r more than one decade. However »yd'ed"u»c_ti~on has to be made while fixing the marlket value Since the claimant 'relied on.j;E'><.itP1 arid..V_VVthe land mentioned in Ex.P1 was t.he4Vl"owner through the auction conducted by the view, suitable deduction has to be V'?I__made. '.Cons'i:der'ihg the evidence adduced in this case and {the land mentioned in Ex.P1 was purchased in it'.l-"i_..;aucitio'n:by the owner and in the absence of any material <2./' :35 before the Court to determine the correct market value of the iand and also applying the principies iaid down by the Hon'b"fey Supreme Court in the case of BASAVVA .VS. ACQUISITION OFFICER reported in AIR 1996 sc :3V;1?'eisa:,. or C view, 65% has to be deducted towards deyeiopment'cAh_a'rges'.7h If 65% is deducted out of Rs.16,4_5,_261v/'--..,At'he mari»;etrt«a:u't§%"--r has to be determined at Rs.5,75,84:/'~ is' rounded of to Rs.5,76,000,!§~..V9er civaimiant is entitied to the statutory benefi-ts p«r:o'po}ftii__o.nate costs. The appeilant is directedto Court fee within eight wee'!<:s receipt of copy of this order. V
28. Iniiviewt 'discussion, I pass the foiiowing: d C A it 1 CCGRDER
1. These,'IVirisceViiane.Qu.s First Appeais are aiiowed in ~ rr1arket'1~vaiue of the acquired iands fixed at Rs".1y,(C)C9,y0OO/- per acre by the reference Court is enhvantced to Rs.5,76,000/- per acre. V ; ;
Qf 3?
3. The other benefits which the claimants are entitled to under sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act remain intact.
4. Rest of the impugned Judgment and Award accepted.
5. Claimant is entitied to proportionate ;:osts;« g_
6. The appeiiant is directed to deposit 'a'dditionav_2.g"A' - * it Court fee within eight weeksiifrlomp the' datepof receipt of copy of this order.
KM/GSS