Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun S/O Amarappa vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462
MSA No. 1148 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013
MSA No. 1146 of 2013
MSA No. 1147 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2013 (LAC)
C/W
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2013(LAC)
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2013(LAC)
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 1147 OF 2013(LAC)
IN MSA NO.1148/2013:-
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUN S/O AMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 56 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & ADVOCATE,
R/O: KARDKAL VILLAGE-584122,
TQ. LINGSUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI AND:
Location: High THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
Court of
Karnataka UPPAR KRISHNA PROJECT,
OFFICE OF UPPAR KRISHNA PROJECT,
AMRAPUR CROSS, POST HERUNDI,
VIA JALHALLI-584116,
TQ. DEVDURG, DIST. RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI-AAG A/W
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA B. YADAV-HCGP)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.08.2013 PASSED IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462
MSA No. 1148 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013
MSA No. 1146 of 2013
MSA No. 1147 of 2013
M.A.NO.64 OF 2011 BY THE I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, RAICHUR,
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.07.2011
PASSED IN LAC NO.66 OF 2009 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE,
(SR.DN), LINGSUGUR, AND ENHANCE THE MARKET VALUE AT
RATE OF RS.2,50,000/- PER ACRE OVER AND ABOVE THE
MARKET VALUE ARRIVED AT BY THE REFERENCE COURT WITH
ALL THE STATUTORY BENEFITS.
IN MSA NO.1145/2013:-
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O AMARAPPA BALEGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KARDKAL VILLAGE-584122,
TQ. LINGSUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPAR KRISHNA PROJECT,
OFFICE OF UPPAR KRISHNA PROJECT,
AMRAPUR CROSS, POST HERUNDI,
VIA JALHALLI-584116,
TQ. DEVDURG, DIST. RAICHUR-585116.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI-AAG A/W
SRI. G. B. YADAV-HCGP)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.08.2013 PASSED IN
M.A.NO.67 OF 2011 BY THE I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, RAICHUR,
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.07.2011
PASSED IN LAC NO.54 OF 2009 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE,
(SR.DN), LINGSUGUR, AND ENHANCE THE MARKET VALUE AT
RATE OF RS.2,50,000/- PER ACRE OVER AND ABOVE THE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462
MSA No. 1148 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013
MSA No. 1146 of 2013
MSA No. 1147 of 2013
MARKET VALUE ARRIVED AT BY THE REFERENCE COURT WITH
ALL THE STATUTORY BENEFITS.
IN MSA NO.1146/2013:-
BETWEEN:
CHANNABASAMMA
W/O SHARNAPPA BALEGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KARDKAL VILLAGE-584122,
TQ. LINGSUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPAR KRISHNA PROJECT,
OFFICE OF UPPAR KRISHNA PROJECT,
AMRAPUR CROSS, POST HERUNDI,
VIA JALHALLI-584116,
TQ. DEVDURG, DIST. RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI-AAG A/W
SRI. G. B. YADAV-HCGP)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.08.2013 PASSED IN
M.A.NO.66 OF 2011 BY THE I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, RAICHUR,
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.07.2011
PASSED IN LAC NO.66 OF 2009 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE,
(SR.DN), LINGSUGUR, AND ENHANCE THE MARKET VALUE AT
RATE OF RS.2,50,000/- PER ACRE OVER AND ABOVE THE
MARKET VALUE ARRIVED AT BY THE REFERENCE COURT WITH
ALL THE STATUTORY BENEFITS.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462
MSA No. 1148 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013
MSA No. 1146 of 2013
MSA No. 1147 of 2013
IN MSA NO.1147/2013:-
BETWEEN:
BASANNA S/O AMARAPPA SINCE DECEASED
REPRESENTED BY LR'S.
a) SUGAMMA W/O BASANNA
AGED ABOUT: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
b) RAVIKUMAR S/O BASANNA,
AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
c) AMRESH S/O BASANNA,
AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R. S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPAR KRISHNA PROJECT,
OFFICE OF UPPAR KRISHNA PROJECT,
AMRAPUR CROSS, POST HERUNDI,
VIA JALHALLI-584116,
TQ. DEVDURG, DIST. RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI-AAG A/W
SRI. G. B. YADAV-HCGP)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.08.2013 PASSED IN
M.A.NO.65 OF 2011 BY THE I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, RAICHUR,
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.07.2011
PASSED IN LAC NO.67 OF 2009 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE,
(SR.DN), LINGSUGUR, AND ENHANCE THE MARKET VALUE AT
RATE OF RS.2,50,000/- PER ACRE OVER AND ABOVE THE
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462
MSA No. 1148 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013
MSA No. 1146 of 2013
MSA No. 1147 of 2013
MARKET VALUE ARRIVED AT BY THE REFERENCE COURT WITH
ALL THE STATUTORY BENEFITS.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
All these appeals arise out of common Judgment and Decree dated 2nd August, 2013 passed in Miscellaneous Appeals No.64, 65, 66 and 67 of 2011 by the I Additional District Judge, Raichur.
2. Parties in these appeals are referred to with their status and rank before the Court below.
3. Appellant in MSA No.1148 of 2013 is the owner of 14 gunta of land in Survey No.186/3; the appellant in MSA No.1145 of 2013 is the owner of 13 gunta of land in Survey No.186/4; appellant in MSA No.1146 of 2013 is the owner of 10 gunta of land in Survey 186/2; and appellant in MSA No.1147 of 2013 is the owner of 2 acre 29 guntas of land in Survey No.186/1b, all lands situate at Kardkal village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District. The above lands were acquired by the respondents vide preliminary notification issued under Section -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 4(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of Rampur Channel. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, determined compensation of Rs.29,250/- per acre for dry land with all statutory benefits. The appellants filed protest petition under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to refer the matter to Reference Court. Accordingly, the matter was referred to Senior Civil Judge, Lingasugur. The learned Senior Civil Judge has registered the case in LAC No.66, 67, 65 and 54 of 2009 and after recording the evidence, Reference Court by judgment and award dated 26th July, 2011, awarded the compensation of Rs.2,72,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the appellants preferred appeals before the I Additional District Judge, Raichur in Miscellaneous Appeals No.64, 65, 66 and 67 of 2011. The same came to be dismissed as per the Judgment dated 02nd August, 2013. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 26th July, 2011 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.66, 67, 65 and 54 of 2009, which is confirmed by the first Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 02nd August, 2013 passed in MAs No.64, 65, 66 and 67 of -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 2011, the appellants have preferred these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants:
4. Sri R.S. Sidhapurker, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the respondents have acquired the lands of appellants for construction of Rampur Channel. It is submitted that, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the respondents for acquisition of land bearing Survey No.186/3 of Kardkal village, Lingsugur Taluk, Raichur District, measuring 14 guntas. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.29,250/- per acre and upon reference, the Reference Court determined the value of the land at Rs.2,72,000/- per acre on the basis of capitalisation method. The appellants have produced sale deeds which are adjoining to the lands of the appellant. Exhibit P9 is the Registered Sale deed dated 19th April, 2005, which is prior to issuance of preliminary notification. The same reveals that the Non-agriculture land was sold at Rs.22.50 per square feet. The vendor of registered sale deed at Exhibit P10 has sold the land property at Rs.33.33 per square feet. The learned -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 counsel submits that, if the value of land is calculated at the rate Rs.22.50 sq.ft. as per Exhibit P9, then per acre it works out to Rs.9,80,100/-; and if the calculation is made at the rate of Exhibit P10, i.e. at Rs.33.33 per sq.ft., then the value per acre would come to Rs.14,50,000/-. However, as the lands in question are alienated lands, the appellants claim only Rs.2,50,000/- per acre over and above the award passed by the Reference Court, i.e. Rs.5,22,000/- per acre. The learned counsel submits that however, the lands in question are having non-agriculture potentiality and situate within Lingasugur Municipal limits. On all these grounds sought to allow the appeal by awarding the compensation at Rs.5,22,000/- per acre, with all statutory benefits. To substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SAJAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in 2021 SAR (Civ) 195;
in the case of MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA, reported in 2014 AIAR (Civil) 831.
5. On the other hand, Smt. Archana Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Sri -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 Gopalakrishna B. Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for repsonents, submits that the valuation of land in Exhibit P10 is the part of Survey No.186/1 of Kardkal village and the same can be considered. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that since the land in Exhibit P9 is pertaining to Survey No.188/1 of the said village, which is not adjacent to the lands in question, the same cannot be considered. It is further submitted that Exhibit P10 is the sale deed pertaining to the plot formed in non-agriculture land and therefore, the same cannot be considered to the lands in question as they are agriculture lands. The land shown in sale deed Exhibit P10 is converted land in Survey No.186/1 measuring 3 acres was converted as Non-agriculture land as per order dated 03rd April, 2002. The plot is sold in the year 2005, just nine months prior to issuance of 4(1) Notification and therefore, that market value also cannot be considered is her submission. It is further submitted that during the course of cross-examination of PW1, he clearly admits that the plot in Survey No.186/1 belong to his brother. The vendor, who is the brother of the claimant, has sold only one plot and hence the market value cannot be considered to the lands in question
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 acquired by the respondents. It is also submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation on the basis of the value as per Exhibit P10, then the Court has to deduct 67% of the compensation towards development charges as deducted by the Reference Court, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. On all these grounds, they sought for dismissal of these appeals. To substantiate their submission, they relied upon the decision of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHANKARRAO BHAGWANTRAO PATIL ETC. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 789; and in the case of CHANDRASHEKAR (D) BY LRs AND OTHERS v. LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER AND ANOTHER reported in 2012(1) SCC
390.
6. Having heard Sri R.S. Sidhapurker, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, learned learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Sri Gopalakrishna B. Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, the following points would arise for consideration in these appeals:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013
1. Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?
2. What order or award?
My answer to the above questions is as follows:
Point No.1: partly in the affirmative;
Point No.2: as per final order Regarding Point No.1:
7. I have carefully examined the material placed before this Court. It is not in dispute that lands in question were acquired by the respondents for construction of Rampura Channel vide Notification dated 27th October, 2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.29,240/- per acre. Upon reference, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,72,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the appellants have preferred appeals before the I Additional District Judge, Raichur in Miscellaneous Appeals No.64, 65, 66 and 67 of 2011, which came to be dismissed on
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 02nd August, 2013. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the First Appellate Court, as also the judgment passed by the Reference Court, the appellants have preferred these second appeals, seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. To prove the case of the appellants, in all, four witnesses were examined before the Reference Curt as PWs1 to 4 and 16 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P16. The defendants have not adduced any evidence before the Reference Court. The Trial Court, relying upon the judgment dated 29th March, 2011 passed in LAC No.73 of 2009, has awarded compensation of Rs.2,72,000/- per acre which pertains to survey No.10/2B of Kardkal village. The First Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
9. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is appropriate to mention here as to the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHIMANLAL HARGOVIND DAS v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, POONA AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652 wherein their Lordships have observed
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 about the facts to be borne in mind while awarding compensation. The same read thus:
"...The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) A reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under sec. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land).
(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-
sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors Plus factors Minus factors
1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.
2. proximity to a road. 2. Siguation in the interior at a distance from the Road.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.
4. nearness to developed 4. lower level requiring area. the depressed portion to be filled up,
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land 6. some special under acquistion.
disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser
7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards."
10. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in MOHINDER SINGH (supra), at paragraphs 5 to 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"5. We carefully considered the submissions and perused the record. The only point for consideration in these appeals is as to what would be the reasonable deduction towards development charges, to be made from the market value. With regard to the location and potential of the land, the Reference Court held that the acquired land adjoins the abadi of the township of Shahabad and it is in its municipal limits and it is in evidence that around this land there exist DAV College, Girls High school, cinema hall, cold storage, rice mills, grain market and private nursing homes and all the establishments have sprung up before the acquisition and the acquired land had great potential value for development of residential commercial and industrial units. The learned single Judge while referring to the contention of the State that the land in question was recorded as agricultural land has held that the State has
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 produced no evidence to establish the same and on the contrary the testimony of PW1 on oath that the land lies within the municipal limit of Shahabad remained unrebutted.
6. This Court in the decision in Charan Dass Vs. H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority [(2010) 13 SCC 398] observed that any deduction made should be based on the situation of the land and the need for development and where the acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with amenities of roads, drainage, electricity etc. then deduction of 40% would not be justified. In Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354] wherein the question had arisen as to whether the deduction of development charges at the rate of 20% in regard to the acquired lands was justified or not, and after taking the various factors into consideration it was held that a cut of 20% to the development charges which was lower than the normal 1/3rd was understandable and could be justified.
7. In our view, the High Court on the facts of the case was justified in taking into consideration the size of the plots which were exhibited for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot acquired, but we are unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed by the High Court since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal limits and the deduction of 1/4th the market value made by the Reference Court is appropriate and liable to be restored.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013
8. In the result the appeals preferred by the claimants are partly allowed and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the Award passed by the Reference Court is restored. The appeals preferred by the State are dismissed. Interlocutory Application Nos. 5 and 6 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2001 for bringing on record the legal heirs are allowed. No costs."
11. In another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in SAJAN (supra), at paragraphs 16, 17 and 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"16. Rule of one-third deduction towards development is the general rule. But depending upon the purpose of acquisition and taking note of well planned layouts, if any, the deduction for development cost may vary from 20% to 75%. Observing that deduction towards development can range from 20% to 75% of the price of the plot, in Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Another (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) .......
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013
22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%."
17. In the present case, since the land was acquired for the construction of Hiwra Dam project, much of the development like in the case of a layout for housing colony is not required. In our view, 40% deduction made by the High Court appears to be on the higher side. Considering the purpose of the acquisition and the facts and circumstances of the case, 20% deduction for development cost would be reasonable. Taking the entire land 2,61,300 sq.ft. as non-agricultural and making 20% deduction for the development cost, the value of the land is calculated at Rs.12,54,530/- as under:-
Value of the land 2,61,360 x 6.90 .... Rs.18,03,384.00 20% deduction .... Rs.3,60,67.68 Rounded to .... Rs.3,60,677/-
Total .... Rs.14,42,707/-
18. xxx xxx xxx
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462
MSA No. 1148 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013
MSA No. 1146 of 2013
MSA No. 1147 of 2013
19. As against the amount of Rs.3,86,867/-
awarded by the Reference Court, the High Court has awarded Rs.2,39,000/- towards depreciated market value of the electrical installation. As per the project report that was initially prepared for the year 1976, cost of factory installation was given at Rs.6,93,677/- and as per award, it has been given Rs.5,78,100/-. Referring to Exh.21 report and evidence of PW-2-Mukund Dharashivkar, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.3,86,867/- towards dismantling charges in respect of electrical, mechanical and re-installation. During the course of dismantling and re-installation, there is every possibility of the electrical installation being damaged. Considering the findings of the Reference Court, in our view, the High Court was not justified in reducing the amount of Rs.3,86,867/- to Rs.2,39,000/- on the ground of depreciated market value of electrical installation. Therefore, the amount of Rs.3,86,867/- awarded by the Reference Court is affirmed. For the dismantling of the electrical installation and re-installation of the same, the amount of Rs.2,39,000/- awarded by the High Court is enhanced to Rs.3,86,867/- as awarded by the Reference Court."
12. In the case on hand, PW1-Mallikarjuna Balegowda, has deposed in his evidence that the lands are situated within the limits of Town Municipality, Lingasugur and these lands are very near to Main Bazar, the Highway running between
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 Lingasugur and Bagalkot, nearer to APMC Market Yard, nearer to Government Offices, Bus Depot, and also there are Educational Institutions surrounding the acquired lands. Some of the lands are converted into non-agriculture and commercial use. Residential layouts are also found in said converted lands and out of the layouts so formed, some of the open plots are sold to the intending purchasers, which are also prior to issuance of preliminary notification dated 27th October, 2005. In the said layouts, buildings have already come-up. PW2- Chandrashekar Balegowda, has adopted the admissions of PW1.
13. Apart from this oral evidence, the appellants have produced Tonch map, TMC Map, RTC extracts pertaining to acquired lands, certified copy of the Sale deeds, list of valuation slip issued by the Sub-Registrar, Lingasugur in respect of lands in survey No.188/1, 186 of Karadkal village of Lingasugur Town, prepared by Town Planning Raichur issued by Town Municipal Corporation, Lingasugur and the Gazette Notification dated 30th December, 2006. A careful examination of the above material makes it clear that the lands in question are
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 adjacent to Town Municipal area and also adjacent to National Highway. Exhibit P5-alienation order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur dated 03rd April, 2002, reveals that Survey No.186/1 of Karadkal village, measuring 3 acres is converted for non-agriculture purpose. The alienation order reveals the boundary of survey No.186/1 measuring 3 acre, which is bounded as under:
East by : remaining land of Survey No.186;
West by: remaining land of Survey No.186;
North by: remaining land of Survey No.186;
South by: land belonging to Survey No.187 The sketch is also produced to show the exact location of these survey numbers.
14. Exhibit P10 is the Registered Sale deed pertaining to plot No.33 situated in Survey No.186/1 of Kardakal village, which reveals that on 31st January, 2005, which is much prior to issuance of 4(1) notification, Sangappa S/o Erappa the owner of the land, has sold 1200 sq.ft. land in Survey No.186/1, in favour of one Basavantappa for a valuable consideration of Rs.17,000/-, which is not disputed by the other
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 side. Since the lands in question are also sub-phodes of land in Survey No.186, it is just and proper to determine the compensation on the basis of this document, i.e. based on the market value of the plot formed out of land in Survey No.186. If the consideration amount of Rs.17,000/- is to the extent of 1,200 sq.ft, then the calculation per acre would come to Rs.9,80,100/-. The only difference between the lands in question and the land involved in Exhibit-P10 is, the land shown in the sale-deed Exhibit-P10 is a converted land and the lands in question are agriculture lands. Therefore, the deduction towards development charges has to be made while determining the market value of the acquired lands. In view of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that rule of one-third deduction towards development charges, is the general rule. But depending upon the purpose of acquisition and taking note of the well-planned layouts, the deduction for development cost may vary from 20 to 75%. In the decision of the judgment in the case of LALCHAND v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (2009)15 SCC 769, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the if the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an un-developed rural
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, i.e., as little as 25-40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available.
15. In the case on hand, the respondents have not addcued any evidence to discard the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and the documentary evidence placed by the claimants. A careful examination of documentary evidence produced, make it clear that the lands in question are abutting to the alienated land of Survey No.186/1. In addition to that these lands are situated by the side of National Highway and these lands are having non-agriculture potentiality. These materials placed by the appellants reveal that the lands in question are situated in developed area. Considering the material placed before this Court, so also, keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, it is just and proper to take the development charges at the rate of 40%, out of the amount of Rs.9,80,100/-. Then the same comes to Rs.5,88,060/- per acre. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for compensation as stated above with all statutory benefits. Hence, I answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013 Regarding Point No.2:
For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass th following:
ORDER
1. Appeals are allowed in part with costs;
2. Appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,88,060/- per acre with all statutory benefits;
3. Respondents are directed to deposit the award amount before the Reference Court within ninety days from the date of award;
4. Appellants are directed to pay the deficit court fee, if any, along with fresh valuation slip as per award of this Court, within eight weeks from today;
5. Draw separate award accordingly;
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2462 MSA No. 1148 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1145 of 2013 MSA No. 1146 of 2013 MSA No. 1147 of 2013
6. Registry to send the copy of the judgment and award to the concerned court along with the trial Court Records.
Sd/-
JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81