Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Smt.Ademma W/O Late Basana Gouda And Ors on 1 September, 2020
Bench: G.Narendar, Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MFA No.201594/2014 (LAC)
C/w
MFA No.200231/2015 (LAC)
IN MFA NO.201594/2014
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER,
(ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER),
RAICHUR.
....APPELLNAT
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA)
AND
1. SMT.ADEMMA W/O LATE BASANAGOUDA,
R/O HEGGASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DEAD BY LRS
BHOJANAGOUDA S/O LATE BASANAGOUDA
AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HEGGASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
2. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINNER
(CONST), S.C.RAILWAYS,
2
RAIHCUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDNETS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE
LAND ACQUSITON ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL
BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWRAD DATED
21.02.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT
RAICHUR IN LAC NO.3/2008.
IN MFA NO.200231/2015
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
(CONST)., S.C.RAILWAYS, RAICHUR
NOW AT MAHBUBNAGAR,
(ANDHRA PRADESH)
....APPELLNAT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.ADEMMA W/O LATE BASANAGOUDA,
R/O HEGGASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DEAD BY LRS
BHOJANAGOUDA S/O LATE BASANAGOUDA
AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HEGGASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER,
(ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER),
RAICHUR.
...RESPONDNETS
3
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE
LAND ACQUSITON ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL
BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWRAD DATED
21.02.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT
RAICHUR IN LAC NO.3/2008.
These miscellaneous first Appeals having been heard
and reserved for judgment, coming on for "Pronouncement
of Judgment" this day, Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.,
delivered the following;
JUDGMENT
The appellants have challenged the judgment and award passed in LAC No.3/2008 dated 21.02.2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court').
2. The parties are referred to as per their nomenclature before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur for the sake of convenience.
4
3. The brief facts of the case are that ;- The lands of respondent No.1/claimant i.e., Sy.No.3/2 measuring 06 guntas, Sy.No.3/1 measuring 09 guntas, Sy.No.8/2 measuring 09 guntas and Sy.No.8/3 measuring 07 guntas, totally measuring 0-31 guntas situated at Heggasanahalli Village, Tq. & Dist. Raichur, were acquired by respondent No.2 as per the Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short 'L.A.Act') dated 28.09.2002, for the purpose of doubling the Railway Line from Mehaboob Nagar to Munirabad at Heggasanahalli Village, Raichur District and the appellant being the beneficiary of the said acquisition of the lands, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'SLAO') of the second respondent fixed the market value of the lands at Rs.65,000/- per acre to the acquired lands.
5
4. Being aggrieved by the determination of the market value as above stated, the respondent No.1 being the landloser had filed the application under Section 18(1) of the L.A.Act before the Reference Court in LAC No.3/2008 and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Reference Court for appropriate determination of the market value and the Reference Court after recording evidence from both sides has determined the market value of the lands at Rs.31/- per sq.ft. and accordingly, the compensation was awarded.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Reference Court, determining the market value of the lands in question at the rate of Rs.31/- per sq.ft., the beneficiary of the said acquisition of lands, preferred the above appeals.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court had committed an error in relying on Exs.P5 and P6, sale deeds to 6 enhance the compensation at the rate of Rs.31/- per sq.ft. and the said Exs.P5 and P6, sale deeds cannot be made the basis for determining the market value. Further contended that the Reference Court had not deducted amount towards development charges and granted the entire sum as compensation.
7. It is contended that based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs. and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarga and another [2012 (1) Supreme Court Cases 390], the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment - MFA No.32505/2011 and connected cases, deduction at the rate of 60% towards development charges was made in case of acquisition of land for formation of doubling of the Railway Line. But in the present case, there is no such deduction made. Therefore, it was contended that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is erroneous and illegal on this count alone.
7
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant argued that there is no need to make deduction towards development charges as the lands were acquired for the purpose of doubling the Railway Line and there is no question of developing the lands. Hence, where there is no development of lands then the deduction of development charges cannot be made. Therefore, in this regard, the Reference Court has rightly not deducted the amount towards development charges. Therefore, the Reference Court has rightly passed the judgment and award, there is no need to interfere in the judgment of the Reference Court. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeals.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant relied on the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as follows ;-
i) AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1414 - Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special L.A.O., South Goa and Ors. ;
8
ii) 2009 (3) KCCR 2133 - C.R.Nagaraj Shetty v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Another ;
iii) 2012 (4) KCCR 2647 (DB) - Dyamagouda Paravatgouda Patil deceased by his LRs and Another vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, NH4 Dharward and Another;
iv) (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 91 -
Valliyammal and Another vs. Special Tahasildar (Land Acquisition) and another;
v) (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 296 - Ram Prakash Agarwal and Another vs. Gopi Krishan (Dead through LRs) and others; and
vi) The Order in W.P.No.203568/2014 (GM-
CPC) dated 02.07.2014.
10. After having heard the arguments canvassed by both the learned counsels, the point that would arise for our consideration is as follows ;-
"Whether the Reference Court has committed error in not deducting 60% of the amount towards development charges and thus, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court requires any interference ?
11. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant has relied on the judgment of this Court 9 and the Hon'ble Apex Court and the applicability of the ratio therein is discussed as below;-
12. The counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special L.A.O., South Goa and Ors. [AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1414]. It is discussed therein that in case of formation of broad-gauge railway line of Konkan Railway, a deduction of 20% be made, in view of the availability of basic civic amenities such as school, bank, police station, water supply, electricity, highway, transport, post, petrol pump, industries etc. Therefore, in a case of laying a railway line also deduction can be made towards development charges and the percentage of deduction depends upon the surrounding developments.
13. The counsel for respondent No.1/claimant had further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex 10 Court in the case of C.R.Nagaraj Shetty v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Another [2009 (3) KCCR 2133]. In the cited case, there was no evidence adduced to establish that development charges are justified. In the above cited case the lands were acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway. In the above cited case, for want of positive evidence regarding the development in the area, held deduction towards development charges cannot be permitted. But in the present case, the respondent No.1/claimant themselves have stated that the entire area is a developed one and having big industries i.e., Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Nagar and other industries, hospitals, schools, colleges and other business, entrepreneurships. Therefore, considering this evidence in the present case, 60% of amount can be deducted towards development charges based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandrashekar's case (stated supra). Therefore, the 11 facts and circumstances and the evidences therein are completely different from the present case. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this judgment.
14. Further the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dyamagouda Paravatgouda Patil deceased by his LRs and Another vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, NH4 Dharward and Another [2012 (4) KCCR 2647 (DB)]. In the cited case, the fact is that the extent of land acquired is 32 guntas and therefore, in the cited case only a small piece of land is acquired. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances, deduction towards development charges cannot be made. But in the present case on hand, it is not only a small piece of land that is acquired but large tract of lands are acquired for the purpose of doubling the railway line to a large extent. Therefore, these facts and circumstances differs from the present case.
12
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Valliyammal and Another vs. Special Tahasildar (Land Acquisition) and another [(2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 91], has allowed the deduction towards development charges but has restricted it to 1/3rd deduction. Therefore, the principle is that towards development charges a deduction can be made.
16. Further the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Prakash Agarwal and Another vs. Gopi Krishan (Dead through LRs) and others [(2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 296]. The facts and circumstances in the cited case are entirely different. Therefore, the same cannot be relied, considering the facts and circumstances in the present case.
17. In the present case, the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of doubling the Railway 13 Line from Mehaboob Nagar to Munirabad at Heggasanahalli Village, Raichur Distinct. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that for the same purpose of doubling the Railway Line when the lands were acquired, out of the total compensation amount awarded, 60% of amount was deducted towards development charges by relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.32505/2011 and connected cases decided on 20.06.2014. The learned counsel for the appellants by placing strong reliance on the above judgment (stated supra) contended that the Division Bench of this Court by following the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs. and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarga and another [2012 (1) Supreme Court Cases 390] had made deduction at the rate of 60% of amount towards development charges. It is therefore submitted that the facts and circumstances stated in 14 the above stated case, are similar to facts and circumstances in the present case. Therefore, the developmental charges ought to have been deducted from the total compensation awarded, but without doing so, the Reference Court has committed an error. Hence, prayed to interfere in the judgment and award of the Reference Court.
18. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in MFA No.32505/2011 and connected cases dated 20.06.2014, had made a deduction to the extent of 60%, wherein the lands were acquired for the similar purpose of doubling the Railway Line. In the above cited case, the fact is that the lands were acquired for the purpose of formation of double Railway Line in Wadi Town of Chittapur Taluk and the beneficiary is South Central Railways and in the present case also the purpose of acquisition of land is for formation of doubling the Railway Line from Mehaboob Nagar to Munirabad at Heggasanahalli Village, Raichur District 15 and the beneficiary in the present case is the same. In the above cited case, the 4(1) Notification was issued on 14.11.1990 and accordingly considering the prevailing market value, the value of the land was determined at Rs.10/- per sq.ft. and 60% of it is deducted towards developmental charges then awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. In the above cited judgment, it was observed that the acquired lands were having close proximity towards the Wadi township very nearer to Wadi Railway Station/Junction and the acquired lands were surrounded by developed areas where cinema theater, schools, power plants and factories had come up and the acquired area had become sandwiched between the well developed areas. Therefore, considering all these factors, had deducted 60% of the amount towards development charges, as above discussed.
19. In the present case also from the discussion made in the judgment and also from perusing the 16 evidence on record, it is clear that the lands in question are having non-agricultural potentiality, which are very close to the Raichur City and adjacent to the State Highway Raichur-Hyderabad main road and also the lands are very nearer to the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Shakthi Nagar, Raichur. Thus, it is surrounded by the factories and moreover, the said area is declared as Industrial Area and many industries were established. Therefore, the facts in the above stated case that the acquired lands were in close proximity with the Wadi Railway Station coming within the Wadi Town and also having close proximity with the factories and in the present case also the lands in question are in close proximity with the Raichur City and adjacent to the State Highway of Raichur-Hyderabad and surrounded by many industries including Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Shakthi Nagar, Raichur and that they are within the area of industrial zone, therefore, the facts in the present case are more similar with the 17 facts and circumstances in the above cited case, namely, the nature of lands and its close proximity with the developed area and industries and State Highway, accordingly, the principle of law laid down in the above cited case is squarely applicable to the present case also. Therefore, the present case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court as stated supra. Therefore, in this regard, the reference Court has committed an error in not deducting the amount towards developmental charges. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (stated supra) dated 20.06.2014, was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.19259-19260/2014, but the appeals were dismissed, confirming the judgment of this Court.
20. Furthermore, in LAC No.236/2006 and connected matters dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, the very same Reference Court (but by different Hon'ble Judge) while 18 considering the cases of acquisition of lands which were acquired in Chikkasugur Village for the very same purpose i.e., doubling the Railway Line from Yaramaras to Mehaboob Nagar - Munirabad at Kokanur, Chikkasugur, Heggasanahalli, Devasugur, Yadlapur and Karekal Villages under the 4(1) Notification dated 20.06.2005, had taken the market value of the land at rate of Rs.31/- per sq.ft. (as it is held in the present case) and made deduction of 60% of amount towards development charges and thus, awarded compensation at the rate of 12.40/- per sq.ft. In LAC No.236/2006 and connected cases, the lands in question were situated at Chikkasugur village, Raichur Taluk and the acquired lands are for the very same purpose of doubling the Railway Line from Mehaboob Nagar to Munirabad, passing through Chikkasugur, Heggasanahalli, Devasugur, Yadlapur and Karekal villages. In the present case also the lands in question are situated at Heggasanahalli village, Raichur District 19 which are acquired for the very same purpose for doubling the said Railway Line.
21. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs. and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarga and another [2012 (1) Supreme Court Cases 390] wherein it was pleased to lay down the principle of law regarding deduction and quantum of deduction towards development charges. Under these circumstances, the Reference Court placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of The Special Land Acquisition vs Vyjanath (deceased) by LR) [2006 (1) KCCR 311] is not correct. Therefore, the opinion formed by the Reference Court that the deduction towards development charges cannot be made in case of formation of railway line, cannot be accepted and is contrary to the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in MFA No.32505/2011 dated 20.06.2014 (stated supra). Therefore, for the reasons 20 above stated, the omission to deduct development charges is contrary to the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Court in MFA No.32505/2011 dated 20.06.2014 (stated supra), as discussed above.
22. In the present case, the respondent No.1/calimant themselves have relied on the judgment and award passed in LAC No.236/2006 and connected matters (stated supra) and in this case, for the very same purpose of formation of railway line the lands situated in other villages surrounding to Heggasanahalli village, Raichur District, deduction of 60% of amount was made towards development charges. But in the present, the Reference Court even though had referred the judgment in LAC No.236/2006 (stated supra), but has taken a contrary view in not making deduction at the rate of 60% of amount towards development charges. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the opinion formed by the Reference Court in the present 21 case deduction towards developmental charges cannot be made, is not correct. In this regard, the appeals are liable to be allowed. Therefore, 60% of amount is liable to be deducted towards development charges. Therefore, the market value of the land is taken at Rs.31/- per sq.ft. and a deduction of 60% of amount be made towards development charges. Thus, enhanced compensation shall be computed and quantified as follows ;-
Market value of land Rs.31.00
Deduction at 60% Rs.18.60
Enhanced compensation Rs.12.40
Therefore, the respondent No.1/claimant is
entitled compensation of Rs.12.40/- per sq.ft.
Accordingly, it is determined.
23. Therefore, upon considering the evidence on record as discussed above and by following the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandrashekar's case (stated supra) and also the 22 judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, have already held deduction of 60% of amount towards development charges is permissible and also accordingly, in respect of the other lands in LAC No.236/2006, a deduction at the rate of 60% of amount was made towards developmental charges, which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.32505/2011 and connected cases (stated supra). Therefore, in the present case also the Reference Court ought to have made deduction at the rate of 60% of amount towards development charges but without doing so, has committed error. Therefore, to this extent the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is liable to be modified. Hence, point for consideration is answered accordingly, Therefore, the appeals succeed partly. Hence, we pass the following ORDER The M.F.A.No.201594/2014 filed by State and M.F.A. No.200231/2015 filed by Union of India, Deputy Chief 23 Engineer, South Central Railways/beneficiary are hereby allowed in part with costs.
The judgment and award dated 21.02.2014 passed in LAC No.3/2008 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur is hereby modified after making deduction at the rate of 60% of amount towards developmental charges out of Rs.31/- per sq.ft. and accordingly respondent No.1/claimant is entitled to the market value determined at the rate of Rs.12.40/- per sq.ft.
All other statutory benefits are kept intact and shall be paid to respondent No.1/claimant.
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. 1/2016 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE sn