Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquistion Officer vs Mahesh Ghatge S/O Narayan Ghatge on 13 July, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
R.P.NO.100060/2022
C/W.
R.P.NO.100059/2022
IN R.P.NO.100060/2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU
2. THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CHANUKYPURI, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
ALL ARE AUTHORIZED AND REP. BY
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICE,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI I.C.PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
2
AND:
1. MAHESH GHATGE S/O NARAYAN GHATGE
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. UDUPI ONI, SHUKAR PETH
DHARWAD-580008
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU
...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI M.M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE, FOR R.1;
SHRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, FOR R.2.)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 15.06.2021 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN MFA NO.100622/2018 C/W MFA CROB
NO.100021/2019 BY ALLOWING THE REVIEW PETITION IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.,.
IN R.P.NO.100059/2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU
2. THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CHANUKYPURI, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
ALL ARE AUTHORIZED AND REP. BY
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
3
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICE, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI I C PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED IQBAL S/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANIKILLA, DHARWAD-580001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU
...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI S.M.KALWAD AND SHRI JAYAVANT KAMBALI,
ADVOCATES, FOR R.1;
SHRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, FOR R.2.)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT /
ORDER DATED 15.06.2021, PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
MFA NO.100621/2018 C/W MFA CROB NO.100116/2018, BY
ALLOWING THE REVIEW PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY, ETC.,.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These review petitions are structured on the arguable apparent lacuna in the judgment wherein for fixing the market value of the agricultural land the discount factor i.e., development charges has escaped 4 our attention. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners presses into service a decision of the Apex Court in Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2012) 1 SCC 390 and argues that at least 60% deduction has to be done since the land in question was admittedly agricultural land and the comparable statistics were taken from the sale deeds which had comprised the lands converted to non-agricultural uses.
2. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.M.M.Khannur, appearing for the land losers vehemently contends that notwithstanding the absence of a formal conversion order under section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, there is enough intrinsic material to treat the subject land on par with converted ones and therefore there is absolutely no case for review. In support of that he draws our attention to paragraph 3(i) & 3(ii) of the judgment in review. He banks upon the Apex Court decision in Union of India vs. Premlata, 2022 SAR Online (SC) 331.
5
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in these review petitions because there is error apparent on the face of the record namely the discount factor has not been adverted to in the judgment in review and therefore that has occasioned loss to the acquiring body; the same has to be rectified.
4. What should be the percentage of deduction towards developmental charges does not admit an arithmetically fixed answer; it depends upon a host of factors including the local housing laws; to our knowledge, when a land is converted to non agricultural user under section 95 of the 1964 Act, ordinarily about 40% of the land so converted, needs to be earmarked for amenities and public utilities. Therefore, this 40% of the land cannot be reckoned for the purpose of valuation of the land. This apart, the development would involve investment by the land owner; keeping overall factors and what has been observed in paragraphs 3(i) & (ii) of 6 the judgment in review, we are of a considered view that the discount value should be 40%. This is supported by the latest decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Premlata, 2022 SAR Online (SC) 331.
In the above circumstances these review petitions partly succeed; while computing the market value of the lands in question in terms of our judgment in review, there shall be 40% deduction towards developmental charges. Rest of the things are left intact.
Since review petitions are allowed, the entire Court fees paid on the memorandum of review petitions as also on the memorandum of appeals in question need to be refunded to the review petitioners.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-