Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Smt. Shantabai W/O Veerabhadrappa on 24 September, 2020
Bench: Krishna S Dixit, P.N Desai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
R
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
MFA No.201775/2018 (LAC)
C/w
MFA No.201773/2018 (LAC), MFA No.201774/2018 (LAC),
MFA No.201776/2018 (LAC), MFA No.201777/2018 (LAC),
MFA No.201417/2019 (LAC), MFA Crob.No.200059/2019
(LAC), MFA Crob.No.200044/2020 (LAC), MFA
Crob.No.200045/2020 (LAC), MFA Crob.No.200046/2020
(LAC), MFA Crob.No.200047/2020 (LAC) &
MFA Crob.No.200043/2020 (LAC)
IN MFA No.201775/2018
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Assistant Executive Engineer,
Construction, S.C. Railway, Gulbarga
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate)
2
And:
1. Smt. Shantabai W/o. Veerabhadrappa
Age: Major,
R/o. Mahagaon
Taluka and district Kalaburagi - 585 105
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner
and Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 & R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, praying to call for the records
in L.A.C.No.86/2014 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Kalaburagi and allow the appeal by setting aside the
judgment and award dated:30.06.2018 passed by learned III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in L.A.C.No.86/2014.
IN MFA No.201773/2018
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Assistant Executive Engineer,
Construction, S.C. Railway, Gulbarga
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate)
3
And:
1. Smt. Renuka W/o Nagendrappa Mugali
Age: Major,
R/o. Mahagaon
Taluka and district Kalaburagi - 585 105
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 and R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, praying to call for the records
in L.A.C.No.87/2014 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil
judge, Kalaburagi and allow the appeal by setting aside the
judgment and award dated:30.06.2018 passed by learned III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in L.A.C.No.87/2014.
IN MFA No.201774/2018
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Assistant Executive Engineer,
Construction, S.C. Railway, Gulbarga
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate)
4
And:
1. Jagannath S/o. Gurulingappa Mugali
Age: Major,
R/o Mahagaon
Taluka and district Kalaburagi - 585 105
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 and R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, praying to call for the records
in L.A.C.No.162/2014 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Kalaburagi and allow the appeal by setting aside the
judgment and award dated:30.06.2018 passed by learned III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in L.A.C.No.162/2014.
IN MFA No.201776/2018
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Assistant Executive Engineer,
Construction, S.C. Railway, Gulbarga
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate)
5
And:
1. Kasturabai W/o Shivananda
Age: Major,
R/o Mahagaon
Taluka and district Kalaburagi - 585 105
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 & R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, praying to call for the records
in L.A.C.No.85/2014 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil
judge, Kalaburagi and allow the appeal by setting aside the
judgment and award dated:30.06.2018 passed by learned III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in L.A.C.No.85/2014.
IN MFA No.201777/2018
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Assistant Executive Engineer,
Construction, S.C. Railway, Gulbarga
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate)
6
And:
1. Shivakumar S/o Sharanabasappa
Age: Major
2. Mallikarjun S/o Sharanabasappa
Age: Major
Both R/o Mahagaon
Taluka and district Kalaburagi - 585 105
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 & R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, praying to call for the records
in L.A.C.No.163/2014 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil
judge, Kalaburagi and allow the appeal by setting aside the
judgment and award dated:30.06.2018 passed by learned III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in L.A.C.No.163/2014.
IN MFA No.201417/2019
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Senior Section Engineer,
7
Construction, S.C. Railway, Gulbarga
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate)
And:
1. Arunkumar S/o. Chandrashekhar
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture and Advocate,
R/o Kalaburagi - 585 102
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 & R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, praying to call for the records
in L.A.C.No.80/2014 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil judge,
Kalaburagi and allow the appeal by setting aside the
judgment and award dated:28.03.2019 passed by learned
Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in L.A.C.No.80/2014.
IN MFA Crob No.200059/2019
Between:
Arunkumar S/o Chandrashekhar
Age: 74 years, Occ: Agriculture & Advocate,
R/o Kalaburagi
... Cross Objector
(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate)
8
And:
1. The Deputy Chief Engineer (S.C. Railway)
Railway Nilaya Building,
Secundrabad, (Andhra Pradesh) - 5000 03
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The Assistant Commissioner
& Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 & R3)
This MFA Crob. is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of
CPC, praying to allow this appeal with costs and modify the
judgment and award passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge,
Kalaburagi dated:28.03.2019 in L.A.C.No.80 of 2014 and fix
Market value at the rate of 100/- per Sq. Ft. and award all
statutory benefits including interest from the date of taking
possession.
IN MFA Crob No.200044/2020
Between:
Smt. Shantabai W/o Veerabhadrappa
Age: 72 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Mahagaon, Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi
... Cross Objector
(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate)
9
And:
1. The Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh),
Represented by Assistant Executive Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway, Kalaburagi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner,
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 & R3)
This MFA Crob. is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of
CPC, praying to allow this appeal with costs and modify the
judgment and award passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Kalaburagi dated:30.06.2018 in L.A.C.No.86 of 2014
and fix Market value at the rate of 92/- per Sq. Ft. and
award all statutory benefits including interest from the date
of taking possession.
IN MFA Crob No.200045/2020
Between:
Smt. Kasturibai W/o Shivananda
Age: 75 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Mahagaon, Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi.
... Cross Objector
(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate)
10
And:
1. The Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh),
Represented by Assistant Executive Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway, Kalaburagi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102.
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner,
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102.
... Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 & R3)
This MFA Crob. is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of
CPC, praying to allow this appeal with costs and modify the
judgment and award passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Kalaburagi dated:30.06.2018 in L.A.C.No.85 of 2014
and fix Market value at the rate of 92/- per Sq. Ft. and
award all statutory benefits including interest from the date
of taking possession.
IN MFA Crob No.200046/2020
Between:
Jagannath S/o Gurulingappa Mugali
Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculture,
11
R/o. Mahagaon, Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi
... Cross Objector
(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate)
And:
1. The Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh),
Represented by Assistant Executive Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway, Kalaburagi
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner,
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 & R3)
This MFA Crob. is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of
CPC, praying to allow this appeal with costs and modify the
judgment and award passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Kalaburagi dated:30.06.2018 in L.A.C.No.162 of 2014
and fix Market value at the rate of 92/- per Sq. Ft. and
award all statutory benefits including interest from the date
of taking possession.
12
IN MFA Crob No.200047/2020
Between:
Smt. Renuka W/o. Nagendrappa Mugali
Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Mahagaon, Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi
... Cross Objector
(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate)
And:
1. The Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh),
Represented by Assistant Executive Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway, Kalaburagi
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner,
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 & R3)
This MFA Crob. is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of
CPC, praying to allow this appeal with costs and modify the
judgment and award passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Kalaburagi dated:30.06.2018 in L.A.C.No.87 of 2014
and fix Market value at the rate of 92/- per Sq. Ft. and
13
award all statutory benefits including interest from the date
of taking possession.
IN MFA Crob No.200043/2020
Between:
1. Shivakumar S/o. Sharanabasappa
Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Mahagaon, Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi.
2. Mallikarjun S/o. Sharanabasappa
Age: 41 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Mahagaon, Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi
... Cross Objectors
(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate)
And:
1. The Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh),
Represented by Assistant Executive Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway, Kalaburagi-02.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Assistant Commissioner,
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalaburagi - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Adv. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 & R3)
14
This MFA Crob. is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of
CPC, praying to allow this appeal with costs and modify the
judgment and award passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Kalaburagi dated:30.06.2018 in L.A.C.No.163 of 2014
and fix Market value at the rate of 92/- per Sq. Ft. and
award all statutory benefits including interest from the date
of taking possession.
These appeal & cross objections having been heard
and reserved for judgment on 23.09.2020, coming on for
pronouncement of Judgment this day, Krishna S. Dixit J.,
delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
These appeals by the beneficiary of acquisition namely the Central Railways and the Cross Objections by the land-losers call in question a common judgment & award dated 19.06.2019 and also a solo judgment & award dated 23.01.2020, entered by the Reference Courts whereby the compensation payable for the acquired lands is enhanced by re-determining their value at Rs.39,20,400/- per acre as against Rs.63,363/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer; the Railways 15 complained that the award is much on the higher side whereas the land-losers, per contra, grieved that the same is much on the meager side.
2. The Central Railways is represented by it's Senior Panel Counsel Mr. Manvendra Reddy and the land-losers are represented by their advocates. Since all these cases arise from the very same acquisition and all the lands are situate at the same village, they are taken up together for the final hearing and disposal with the concurrence of the Bar.
3. Facts in brief:
All these agricultural lands along with other situate at the village of Mahagaon of Gulbarga Taluka have been acquired for the benefit of Central Railways; the acquisition commenced with the issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 15.07.2010 (published on 28.10.2010) under section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by the Final Notification 16 and later the award dated 19.03.2012; the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a compensation of Rs.63,363/- per acre; however, this came to be enhanced by the impugned Judgment & Awards in multiples by re-determining the land value at Rs.90/Sft.
hence, these appeals by the beneficiary and the Cross Objections by the land-losers.
4. The contentions submitted on behalf of the beneficiary of acquisition i.e., the Central Railways:
Learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Railways Mr. Manvendra Reddy vehemently argues that:
a) the award of compensation is militantly on the higher side; the Reference Courts fell in gross error in mindlessly taking the Sale Deed dated 11.08.2011 at Ex.P-26 which is executed subsequent to Preliminary Notification;
b) the said Sale Deed is executed by one of the land-losers in LAC No.185/2014 and he happens to be 17 a brother of the claimant in MFA No.201418/2019 arising from LAC No.80/2014; therefore, this transaction apparently having ulterior motive needs to be excluded from the zone of consideration;
c) the Sale Deed dated 11.08.2011 at Ex.P.26 comprises of a small house site measuring 2400 sq. ft.
in an approved housing layout within the Panchayat Area; it is bought for commercial purpose for a dubious price of Rs.6,00,000/-; therefore, this Sale Deed could not have been banked upon by the Reference Courts when other comparable proximate sale transactions were available on record as exemplars;
d) the rule of uniform price is not invokable even when the lands are included in the very same Notification or that they are situate at the very same village; a host of factors would enter into the fray of determining the market value, and by a sheer logic they 18 being variable the price also varies from land to land even within the same area;
e) there is abundant evidentiary material on record to show that the lands in acquisition do not have conversion potential nor are they proximate to other converted lands of the village, Schools, Colleges, Hospitals, Malls, Post Office, Bus Stands, Railway Stations, Government Offices, main roads, or the like;
f) the learned judges of Reference Courts have not referred to the rulings cited on behalf of the Railways, nor have they ascertained the value of lands by applying well settled principles that obtain in the field; and
g) learned AGA representing the LAO echoes the same contentions in a bit different voice which the learned Panel Counsel for the Railways in an inimitable style submitted; AGA superadds that, no reasonable 19 mind trained in law would have enhanced the compensation, to such an astronomical value.
5. The contentions submitted on behalf of the land-losers:
Learned lead counsel Mr. Harshavardhan Malipatil, appearing for the land-losers, per contra, vociferously contends that:
a) the appeals filed by the Central Railways are incompetent inasmuch as 50% of the compensation is being paid by the State Government itself; apparently, the Central Railways has paid half the court fee; the impugned award being indivisible, a partial challenge thereto cannot be entertained, in the absence of State as a co-challenger;
b) the Reference Court ought to have relied on a Sale Deed dated 25.11.2002 at Ex.P.25, which is years anterior to initiation of acquisition proceedings, of course, with admissible escalation, and deduction 20 towards development, as well; if that is done, the price of the land would be Rs.250/Sft.; the compensation now awarded by the LAO is frugal and the Reference Courts having regard to selective sale statistics of the comparable lands has enhanced the same but only to some extent, when more was warranted;
c) there is no fault in choosing a sale transaction having highest sale price to the advantage of the land-
losers from amongst the post-Preliminary Notification sales with admissible de-escalation rate at 5% per annum;
d) 60% deduction value towards development cost as is taken by the Reference Courts is too much on the higher side, ordinarily 33% being the norm; what has been awarded being less than what the land-losers are entitled to, enhancement needs to be granted; and 21
e) in identical circumstances, this court has granted 3% by way of damages since the running rail lines bifurcate the remaining lands of the land-losers since such bifurcation affects adversely on the development potential, apart from causing a lot of inconvenience for cultivation; they suffer some amount of price-prejudice in the market.
All other counsel appearing for the land-losers broadly accepted the line of arguments advanced by the learned counsel.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having examined appeal papers & the TCR, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
A) In re indivisibility of the awards and the bar as to partial challengability thereto:
(i) The contention of Mr. Harshavardhan Malipatil that the liability for compensation being shared equally 22 by the Central Railways and the State Government, the challenge by the Railways alone, is not maintainable since the award is indivisible, does not merit countenance for more than one reason: firstly, all the records show that on acquisition, the Central Railways has become the absolute owner of the lands in question, notwithstanding contribution by the State Government to the compensation amount; in a constitutionally ordained Federal Structure like ours, participation of Federal Units namely the State Governments in projects like this, undertaken by the Union Government, is not uncommon; such contributions are made for several purposes, being beside the point.
(ii) Secondly, the challenge is made to the entire judgment & award, and not partially, the payment of half court fee, notwithstanding; after all, no court fee would have been payable by the State Government 23 under the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1958, subject to all just exceptions, had it been a co-
appellant with the Railways; it is also pertinent to note that the SLAO being a party to the proceedings has entered appearance through the learned AGA and has fully supported the challenge laid by the Railways on the same grounds that are urged on it's behalf.
(iii) The very idea canvassed on behalf of the land- losers that the award being indivisible, cannot be challenged in part, sounds like "Dalton's Atomic Theory"
which postulates "Atom is indivisible" when it is not; the Apex Court's decision in State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram AIR 1962 SC 89 and Ram Sarup vs. Munshi & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 553 which discuss about the partial challengability of the indivisible decrees in a very different context, do not come to the rescue of the land- losers; the argument that, entertaining the present appeals at the instance of Railways may result in 24 conflicting awards i.e., two sets of determination of land value viz. one part that is challenged by the Railways and the other left unchallenged by the State Government, does not impress us, either; if such a proposition is accepted, the Central Government to which Railways exclusively belongs eventually would always be at the mercy of the State Governments, even for working out it's lawful grievances like the one at hands; this spurns at law, at reason and at justice.
(iv) This contention of the land-losers even otherwise pales into insignificance now since the Central Railways has undertaken to make good the deficit court fees as a precondition for drawing the decree to be entered in these appeals; the memo dated 23.09.2020 filed by it's Senior Panel Counsel undertaking to pay the deficit Court fee is also taken on record, there being no objection from the other side. 25
(B) General principles for determining the market value of lands and their invokability in these cases:
(a) The principles relating to the determination of the market value of lands, are now fairly well settled by a catena of decisions; seventeen guidelines have been succinctly laid down by the Apex Court in Chimanlal Harigovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751; the gist of relevant of these guidelines is as under:
(i) The Reference Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced by the parties before it. The claimant being in the position of a plaintiff has to show that the price offered by the LAO by the award for his land is inadequate on the basis of the material produced by both the sides.
(ii) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of Preliminary Notification, with the presumption that the land-owner is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price; the subsequent sale transactions ordinarily do not constitute the exemplars or the relevant instances indicative of the price of the land in acquisition.
(iii) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account excluding the sale transactions that are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land; 26
however, post notification transactions can be taken into account if they are proximate in terms of time & place and also if other contemporaneous or proximate pre-notification transactions are not available.
(iv) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors; this exercise is to be undertaken in a common sense manner and as a prudent manner of the world of business.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court having reiterated the above principles in Vithal Rao and another Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3330, has added some more explanation at paragraph No.29 which reads as under:
"29. In addition to these principles, this Court in several cases have also laid down that while determining the true market value of the acquired land and especially when the acquired land is a large chunk of undeveloped land, it is just and reasonable to make appropriate deduction towards expenses for development of acquired land. It has also been consistently held that at what percentage the deduction should be made vary from 10% to 86% and, therefore, the deduction should be made keeping in mind the nature of the land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose of acquisition, etc. It has also been held that while 27 determining the market value of the large chunk of land, the value of smaller piece of land can be taken into consideration after making proper deduction in the value of lands and when sale deeds of larger parcel of land are not available. This Court has also laid down that the Court should also take into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land apart from other relevant considerations. This Court has also recognized that the Courts can always apply reasonable amount of guesswork to balance the equities in order to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act..."
None of these principles had been kept in mind by the Judges of the Courts below in treating the reference cases, as rightly contended by the Panel Counsel for the Railways; there is, in our considered opinion, more than what meets the eye; more is not necessary to specify and less is insufficient to leave it unsaid;
C) As to comparable/contemporaneous sales statistics and their relevance to determination of market value of the lands:
The III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge at Kalaburagi has treated LAC No.163/2014 filed by the two brothers 28 viz., Shivakumar & Mallikarjun, as the base case, and decided rest of the references in terms thereof; therefore, the focal point of our examination is the sale statistics referred to in paragraphs 18 & 19 of the impugned common judgment, namely, the Sale Deed dated 11.08.2011 at Ex.P-26 produced by the land- losers, the Sale Deed dated 29.04.2009 at Ex.D-3 and two more Sale Deeds dated 24.05.2011 & 30.07.2011 at Exs.R.16 & R.17, respectively, all the three being produced by the Railways; our observation in respect of these sale transactions is as under:
a) Sale Deed dated 11.08.2011 at Ex.P-26:
(i) As already mentioned above the Preliminary Notification is dated 15.07.2010 and it was published on 28.10.2010; thus, obviously this Sale Deed has come into existence after the acquisition process had commenced; the Apex Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., vs. Ramesh Bhai 29 Jeevan Bhai Patel & Anr., (2008) 14 SCC 745 observed "One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of the acquired lands...."; the same is reiterated in Maya Devi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 474; although this proposition is subject to a few exceptions, the Sale Deed in question having come into existence a little long after the commencement of acquisition process should have been excluded from the zone of consideration as rightly argued by Mr. Reddy, since case of the land-losers is not shown to fit into any exceptions, and more particularly when several other comparable sale deeds of 2008, 2009 & 2010 were very much available on record.
(ii) This Sale Deed at Ex.P-26 comprises a house plot admeasuring 60 x 40 Sft. (2400 Sft.) carved out of a Panchayat Approved Housing Layout; the price paid is 30 Rs.6,00,000/- which appears to be fancy & dubious;
neither, copies of other Sale Deeds of other plots in the same layout are produced nor any explanation is offered for not producing the same; ordinarily when a large tract of agricultural land is acquired, even the contemporaneous sale transactions comprising small house sites situate at an Approved Housing Layout have to be kept at a bay, especially when there are other sale deeds having more proximity in terms of time & place vide Vitthal Rao Case, supra; no exceptions as pointed out in SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. N.K. RAFIQ SAHEB, (2011) 7 SCC 714, are shown; therefore, the learned Judges of the Courts below grossly erred in ignoring this important principle.
(iii) The Sale Deed at Ex.P-26 appears to have been generated for ulterior motive becomes clear because: it is executed by one of the land-losers in the very same acquisition i.e. LAC No.185/2014 from which 31 one of the connected appeals has arisen; further he also happens to be a brother of the appellant land-loser in LAC No.80/2014 from which the connected MFA No.201418/2019 has emanated; by this we do not hasten to assume that, 'fraud & duplicity' have played their role here; suffice it to say that, the transaction in question is a motivated one and therefore, needs to be excluded from the zone of consideration vide Chimanlal Harigovinddas Case, supra, more particularly when the Preliminary Notification is dated 15.07.2010 (published on 28.10.2010).
(b) Sale Deed dated 29.04.2009 at Ex.D-3 (R-3):
(i) Apparently, this Sale Deed is anterior to the commencement of acquisition process and it comprises of a double-house-site admeasuring in all 4800 Sft.
situate in Sy.No.75/1 of Mahagaon village in which all lands acquired too, are located; the dimension of this site is twice the dimension of the site comprised in the 32 above post-notification Sale Deed at Ex.P-26; this site is in a housing layout approved by the Town Planning Authority, Gulbarga vide Order dated 25/26.11.2008; the price shown is Rs.2,65,500/- whereas the one paid for the site in Ex.P-26 is Rs.6,00,000/- for half the dimension though it is only in a Panchayat approved layout; not even a whisper is made as to why this Deed at Ex.D-3 having more proximity of time & contiguity of place should not be acted upon; much can be assumed as to the approach of these two Judges, who have pushed the issue under the carpet casually observing as under:
"...The Ex.P-26 is related to 2400 square feet and value of said land is Rs.6,00,000/-. Therefore, Ex.P-26 is highest market value of the land...On comparing Ex.R-3 & Ex.P-26 it is just and necessary to take highest market value of the land. Therefore the court opined (sic) that the sale deed dated 11.08.2011 is reliable and comparative sale deed to assess the market value of the acquired land...";
This is not a judicious determination, to say the least; 33
(ii) In fact, this Sale Deed at Ex.D-3 could have been scrupulously adopted with escalation value of one year and with deduction towards development charges in a reasonable percentage; however, strangely, learned Judges of the Court below go for 2011 Sale Deed at Ex.P-26 with de-escalation and this gives scope for 'some assumption'; when there are both pre-notification transactions & post-notification transactions, it is prudent to have only the former for consideration, the latter being ordinarily inadmissible in the absence of special circumstances, vide Rameshbai Case, supra.
(c) Sale Deed dated 30.07.2011 at Ex.R-17:
(i) This Sale Deed produced by the Railways comprises of 5 acres of agricultural land in the same village; the sale consideration is Rs.11.80 lakh i.e. Rs.2.36 lakh per acre; both in terms of proximity of time and contiguity of situation, this Sale Deed is absolutely relevant; another added advantage of 34 accepting this Deed is that, the extent of land comprised therein is huge compared to the size of the plots comprised in the other two Sale Deeds at Ex.P-26 & Ex.D-3 and that it is an agricultural land; Mr. Reddy is more than justified in submitting that this Deed should be acted upon with one year escalation value at the rate of 10%, which approximately works out to Rs.2,47,000/- per acre;
(ii) There is force in the further contention of Mr. Reddy that when a huge tract of land in several acres is being acquired, the valuation should be on acreage basis and not footage; comparable sales statistics which are placed on record are also of acreage basis; true it is that the Apex Court in Rafiq Saheb Case, supra, at paragraph-24 observed as under:
"24. It may also be noticed that in the normal course of events, it is hardly possible for a claimant to produce sale instances of large tracts of land. The sale of land containing large tracts are generally very far and few. Normally, the sale instances would relate to 35 small pieces of land. This limitation of sale transaction cannot operate to the disadvantage of the claimants. Thus, the court should look into sale instances of smaller pieces of land while applying reasonable element of deduction."
The ratio broadly emerging from this observation is more in the nature of an exception to the general rule that when large tracts of land are acquired, the transactions comprising small piece of land should not factor in the determination of land value; as already mentioned above, there are exemplar Sale Deeds placed on record which comprise considerably larger pieces of lands namely, the Sale Deed dated 30.07.2011 at Ex.R- 17 which involves 5 acres of agricultural land, that too in the very same village; it needs to be stated that a ratio of a binding decision cannot be abused by placing a broad interpretation that was not intended by the court which has laid it down; otherwise, what is stated as an exception to the rule runs the risk of unjustifiably partaking the character of the rule itself, to which it was 36 intended to be an exception; therefore, the contention that the sale transactions comprising small pieces of land can also be looked into, does not merit acceptance.
(d) There is a lot of force in the contention of learned Panel Counsel for the Railways that the Judges of the Courts below have conveniently ignored several exemplar Sale Deeds relating to the lands situate in the same village; they are: the Sale Deed dated 19.05.2008 at Ex.R-6 which comprises 1 acre of land in Sy.No.116, consideration being Rs.42,000/-; Sale Deed dated 25.01.2008 at Ex.R-11 comprising 30 guntas in the same survey number, consideration being Rs.65,000/-; the Sale Deed of even date at Ex.R-12 comprising 1 acre of land, price being Rs.80,000/- and the Sale Deed dated 11.04.2008 at Ex.R-13 comprising a 30 x 40 Sft. site in Sy.No.399/2, consideration being Rs.15,000/-; the Judges of the Reference Courts appear to be "un- 37 understandably" selective; this is not a happy thing to happen in judicial process.
e) Sale Deed dated 25.11.2002 at Ex.P-25:
Mr. Harshavardhan vehemently contended that, this Deed from all angles should figure as the base factor with cumulative escalation of value at 10 to 15% per year; we are afraid, it cannot be done for several reasons: it comprises of a site of frugal dimension i.e. 10 x 20 Sft.; it is situate within the Panchayat Area and bears Panchayat Number 13-1 of Mahagaon village;
the price is shown to be Rs.5,000/-, which works out to be Rs.25/Sft.; it is not an agricultural land; Mr. Harshavardhan fairly concedes that it is a commercial site; there are other exemplar transactions having more contemporanity and contiguity which justifiably exclude this eight year old Sale Deed from the zone of consideration in determining the market value of the land for the acquisition year 2010; in such cases, it is 38 unsafe to go for escalation or de-escalation method; an argument to the contrary may justify one to go in search of the sales statistics of the years bygone when the King Babur had come to India (metaphorically speaking); this is only to highlight the limitations that restrict the scope and invokability of the "Rule of escalation & de- escalation"; in matters like this, one cannot go too much in reverse gear, nor wildly speculate in the dimness of future; the sense of logic and reason should animate the exercise of determining the land value, in the given circumstances.
f) Sale Deeds dated 05.07.2010 & 21.08.2010 now produced by the Railways with leave of the Court:
(i) The appellant-Railways has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 seeking leave of the Court to produce additional evidence namely, certified copies of two Sale Deeds dated 05.07.2010 & 21.08.2010; there is no objection to the same; the said 39 relevant documents being the certified copies of the registered Sale Deeds that are specifically admitted by a land-loser on confrontation in cross-examination in LAC No.167/2014, leave is granted; accordingly the same are admitted to the record of evidence.
(ii) The Sale Deed dated 05.07.2010 is executed by one of the land-losers in the very same acquisition; it comprises a plot measuring 40 x 60 Sft. in Sy.No.75/1 of the same village; it is sold for a price of Rs.1,20,000/-; this sale transaction is proximate to the Preliminary Notification; the Sale Deed dated 21.08.2010 comprises a small house site of 1200 Sft. carved out from an approved layout in Sy.No.76/5 of the same village for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-; it is nobody's case that this transaction is excessively undervalued and should not be acted upon; still acting upon this deed would yield frugal values as worked out below; however, the Sale Deed dated 05.07.2010 being 40 proximate both in terms of time and place can be taken as the best evidence for determining the market value subject to a reasonable deduction, as rightly and fairly submitted by the Panel Counsel; it has more pertinence since the same is admittedly executed by one of the land-losers now in appeal.
D) Bifurcation of land because of rail lines and consequent prejudice to utility value of the land:
(i) Mr. Harshavardhan contends and we agree with him, that since the rail lines run in the lands of his clients, the bifurcation inevitably takes place causing some prejudice to the remainder of the lands retained by them after giving up the acquired ones; he also points out that, no development activities can be undertaken in the proximity of the rail-tracks and that there is some disadvantage in respect of land utility; the long and short of the story is that the market valuation of these lands to some extent get affected and therefore some reasonable damages/compensation needs to be 41 awarded; Mr. Manvendra Reddy opposes the same fervently, stating that what are the relevant factors that should enter the process of determination of land value are already prescribed by law vide section 23 of the Act and therefore, a new "head of compensation" cannot be judicially created; we are not inclined to agree with this;
(ii) It is necessary to take judicial notice of the Circular No.2015/LML-l/19/2 dated 25.06.2015 addressed by the Director (Land & Amenities), Railway Board; paragraphs 2.0 & 8.0 of the said Circular being relevant are reproduced below:
"2.0 Railways NOC is required for construction of building within 30 metres from railway boundary as per para 827 of IRVVM. Instructions with regard to issue of "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) for construction/ redevelopment of Government and private building on land adjoining railway boundary have been issued vide above referred letters. It is observed that Railways are following different procedure and in some zonal railways too much time is taken in granting NOC. Hence a need is felt to streamline the procedure. The Party be asked to submit the following documents along with request letter 42 duly forwarded by State Government/ Local authority to the concerned Divisional office.
a) Clear title of land in favour of applicant supported by all related documents.
b) Detailed drawing of the building showing complete layout (including height, width and length).
c) Structural stability certificate by a Civil/Structural Engineer.
8.0 The total 60 days is the limit for granting NOC. Railway should keep a continuous watch on construction along the railway boundary and ensure that no construction is allowed without railway's NOC. A data base of NOC cases shall be maintained by the Railways."
iii) In some States, local laws prescribe the distance to be maintained from the railway property when construction is to be undertaken in the adjoining private lands for instance Rule (6) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 prescribes 30 meters buffer zone between the railway land and the private land and requirement of permission from the Railway Authority which would consider such applications 43 within 30 days vide Kerala High Court decision in P.Ali vs. Southern Railway, W.P.(C)No.3594/2015(Y), disposed off on 06.06.2008; apparently, the subject Circular prescribes the approval of the Railways for any construction to be undertaken in the private land adjoining the rail-lines and a period of 60 days is prescribed for considering the request for approval; going by the text & context of this Circular, one can safely assume the restrictions stipulated therein even in respect of usage of private land of citizens; the right to property being guaranteed by Article 300A of the Constitution of India, such a restriction entitles the owner of the private land to some fair and reasonable compensation.
(iv) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok vs. the SPL. LAO, MFA No.31998/2011 & connected matters decided on 08.02.2013 has observed at pages 16 & 17 as under:
44
"... This canal though helpful to the public at large has certainly caused damage to these claimants. Section 23 of the Act deals with matters to be considered in determined compensation. It provides that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land from the other land and also by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting other properties, movable or immovable in any other manner. When a distributory canal is formed in these claimants' lands certainly cultivation of the lands cannot be made as before the formation of a canal. It thus acts as a hindrance particularly when the cost of cultivation has considerably increased. In fact, this distributory canal formed between NH13 and the lands, this acts as an obstruction to some other portion of the lands. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, we are of view that 5% of the amount of compensation has to be awarded towards compensation for the damage caused in the aforesaid lands..."
These observations support the case of the land-losers for the award of additional compensation.
(v) In other similar matters, it is contended by Mr. Harshavardhan and not disputed by Mr. Manvendra 45 Reddy that this Court has awarded an additional compensation of 3% of the basic land value because of the disadvantage which the adjoining lands retained by the land-losers after acquisition, suffer; therefore, we cannot deny similar benefit to these land-losers; in our view 3% here too needs to be added, there being no repugnant circumstances that warrant denial of the same; in fact Mr.Manvendra Reddy too has fairly mentioned this in his written notes.
E) As to non-application of mind by the Reference Courts:
Learned Panel Counsel Mr. Reddy points out and we cannot much disagree with the same, that the impugned Judgments & Awards are infected with another infirmity namely, non-application of mind to the relevant material; the learned Judges record a finding that the LAO has treated the acquired lands in question as not being irrigated; this is plainly wrong inasmuch as exactly, contra is the finding at least, in respect of some 46 of these lands, if not all; therefore, the reason assigned by the said Judges for enhancing the compensation that the lands are irrigated loses significance, since this factor was already noted by the LAO and nothing new is discovered in variance; however, this is not very relevant to the adjudication of these appeals because in any circumstance the award is only in the nature of an offer and that the Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the same.
F) Non-consideration of rulings cited on behalf of Railways:
(i) Mr. Manvendra Reddy is more than justified in complaining that the learned Judges of the Reference Courts have not adverted to the relevant rulings cited from the side of the Railways; non-consideration of binding precedents is a serious matter; it hardly needs to be stated that, in common law countries like ours march of law from April to June of it's life is noticeably occasioned, precedent by precedent; that is how the 47 rights of the citizens broaden in civilized jurisdictions;
ignoring the relevant rulings cited by the lawyers in support of their propositions virtually amounts to ignoring the law applicable to the facts of the case and also denigrating the Bar which is an integral part of the Institution of Judiciary; arguably, it may border contempt of the court, too; more often than not, such judgments rendered without adverting to the precedents cited at the Bar become vulnerable for challenge, as has happened in these cases.
(ii) Before parting with this issue, one more thing needs to be mentioned: at times numerous rulings are cited in support of the very same proposition of law; if these rulings are of persuasive value, being those rendered by other High Courts, this is understandable; however, a bunch of decisions of the Apex Court are cited containing the very same proposition of law; this is not a prudent thing to do; the decisions of the Apex Court 48 are made binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India which reads: "The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."; it needs to be noted that this provision does not employ the expression "The law repeatedly declared by the Supreme Court" and therefore there is no need for duplicating the citations of the Apex Court for the same propositions, when citing one would serve the purpose; learned authors Nick Taylor and Andrew Francis of University of Leeds, U.K. in the "FOUNDATIONS OF LAW" at page-7 have rightly exhorted as under:
"Numerous cases are published in law reports, legal databases and online. In R v Erskine (2009) the Court of Appeal said lawyers needed to select carefully the cases they referred to in court or the justice system would be 'suffocated'. Only cases which established the principle of law under consideration should be cited. Authorities that merely illustrated the principle, or restated it, should not be cited. The court was thereby seeking to ensure that the doctrine of precedent is not overwhelmed by the sheer number of published judgments." 49
After all, the numerical strength of the rulings does not enhance their precedential value, need not be stated in so many words; too many rulings reiterating the same ratio when avoidably cited, add to the woes of Judges, and may be, sometimes to the disadvantage of the litigants, also.
G) As to rule of uniform value for the lands in the same village/area:
(a) Mr. Reddy vehemently contended that even where the notified lands are situate at the same village, there cannot be uniform valuation since a host of factors would enter the valuation process and these factors vary from land to land even in the same survey number; he points out that in India the survey numbers would comprise vast extent of lands which admit variable factors; in support of this, he relies upon the decision in Basant Kumar vs. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 542; at paragraph-5 of the said decision the Apex Court has observed as under:50
"It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command same market value. The lands abutting the main road or national highway command higher market value and as the location goes backward, market value of interior land would be less even for the same kind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value. It is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. So, all lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market value. Burden is always on the claimant to prove the market value and the court should adopt realistic standards and pragmatic approach in evaluation of the evidence. The doctrine of equality in determination and payment of same compensation for all claimants involved in the same notification is not a good principle."
(b) We have carefully perused all the papers in TCR/LCR which comprise of the award, the sales statistics & some LAC awards made by the Reference Courts in respect of somewhat comparable lands; in our considered view, the value of the lands comprised in the subject survey numbers can safely be taken to be the same, a few varying factors pointed out by Mr. Reddy, 51 notwithstanding; after all, the exercise of finding out the true value inevitably involves some amount of guesswork, as observed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions.
H) As to 60% deduction towards development charges being arguably excessive:
(i) Learned counsel Mr. Harshavardhan contends that the deduction at the rate of 60% made by the Reference Courts being too much on the higher side is unsustainable and that, by norm, deduction value should be 33% in the absence of otherwise factors; in support of his submission, he relies on the case of Mohammed Yusuf & Ors. vs. State of Harayana, (2018) 16 SCC 105; per contra learned Panel Counsel Mr. Reddy opposes the same contending that the Courts have enormous discretion in fixing the deduction value that may range between 10 to 86% vide Vitthal Rao Case, supra and therefore in the absence of the exercise 52 of this discretion being shown to be wrong, the Appellate Court ordinarily should not interfere.
(ii) The Apex Court in Maya Devi supra has extensively discussed the position of law in this regard, after surveying a catena of its earlier decisions; a perusal of this decision shows that there cannot be a thumb rule as to what should be the deduction value when the exemplar is a small piece of plot in a developed housing layout; the deduction for development comprises of two components namely, the area required to be utilized for developmental work & the cost likely to be incurred for such works; normally the percentage of "deduction for development" to be made for fixing the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands having development potential, with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, ranges from 20% to 86%, depending upon the variable factors; the lands in question have 53 some amount of conversion potential cannot be much disputed; however, keeping in view the principles discussed in the aforesaid decisions, we are of a considered view that the deduction value should be downwardly revised to 45% from 60; it is so because the exemplars which we have acted upon inter alia show the formation of housing layouts in the lands nearby the acquired ones.
I) As to how we have re-determined the market value of these lands:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove made, the true value of the acquired lands is re-determined at Rs.37/Sft. (rupees thirty seven) only with the following exemplars:
(i) The Sale Deed dated 05.07.2010 which is produced by the Railways with the leave of the Court, is executed by a land-loser in LAC No.167/2014 from which MFA No.202461/2019 has arisen; it comprises a house plot measuring 2400 Sft. for a price of 54 Rs.1,20,000/-; the plot is in Sy.No.75/1 of the same village and the acquired lands are very proximate to this:
Calculation:1,20,000 (price) divided by 2400 (plot measurement) is equal to Rs.50/Sft.; from this, 45% needs to be deducted (being the development charges) and that comes to 27.50; to this needs to be added another 3% which figure therefore becomes 28.325 and the same can be rounded off to Rs.29/Sft.
(ii) Sale Deed dated 29.04.2009 at Ex.D-3 comprises a plot of 4800 Sft. sold for a price of Rs.2,65,000/-; the said plot being in the layout formed in Sy.No.75/1 of same village is also proximate to the plot comprised in the Sale Deed dated 05.07.2010 at (i) above;
Calculation: 2,65,000 (sale price) divided by 4800 (plot measurement) is equal to Rs.55.2/Sft. plus one year escalation value at 10% which works out to 55 60.54. i.e. rounded off to 61; from this, 45% needs to be deducted (being the developmental charges) and that figure therefore will be 33.30; to this needs to be added 3% that comes to 34.32 i.e. rounded off to Rs.35/Sft.
(iii) Sale Deed dated 21.08.2010 is produced by the Railways with the leave of the Court; it comprises of a residential plot admeasuring 1200 Sft. carved out from the approved housing layout in Sy.No.76/5 of the same village; its price is shown to be Rs.40,000/-; Calculation: 40,000 divided by 1200 is equal to Rs.33.33/Sft.; from this needs to be deducted 45% (being the developmental charges) and that works out to 18.34; to this needs to be added 3%; that would make it 18.89 which can be rounded off to Rs.19/Sft.
Out of the above three exemplars, we have chosen the sale transaction of 29.04.2009 being the one which yields the highest value i.e. Rs.35/Sft.; this apart, regard being had to the arguable rise of land prices in 56 varying degrees, in this particular village, we have graciously added another 5% and that enhances the land value to Rs.36.75 which is rounded off to Rs.37/Sft.
In the above circumstances, the appeals filed by the Railways are allowed and the Cross Objections filed by the land-losers are dismissed; the impugned Judgments & Awards of the Reference Courts below, having been modified, the market value of the lands in question is re-determined at Rs.37/Sft.(rupees thirty seven) only; the compensation shall be worked out accordingly with admissible addages; the statutory interest shall be reckoned from the date of the award or from the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier; the Railways shall deposit the deficit of compensation amount, if any, in the Reference Courts within three months and that the delay brooked in depositing the same shall entail the Railways with an additional interest of 2% per month.
57
The Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit and send back the TCR to the jurisdictional Reference Courts immediately which shall appropriate the amount towards payment of compensation to the land-losers at the above re-determined rate at the earliest; the residue of the deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the Railways, forthwith.
All other applications filed by either parties pale into insignificance since main matters themselves are heard & disposed off on merits.
Costs made easy.
We place on record our deep appreciation for the commitment and alacrity with which the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Railways Mr. Manvendra Reddy conducted these cases; Mr. Harshavardhan Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the land-losers also commends appreciation.
58
The Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the Registrar General of this Court, at Bengaluru for considering its placement in the Service Dossiers of the Judicial Officers concerned namely, Mr. H.K. Naveen who was the then III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Mr. G.R. Shettar who was then the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, both at Kalaburagi.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE swk/BL