Karnataka High Court
Veerabhadrappa S/O Chidanandappa vs The Assistant Commissioner on 11 September, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB
MFA No. 100255 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100255 OF 2016 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
VEERABADRAPPA S/O. CHIDANANDAPPA,
AGE 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENNUR-583229, TALUK. GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL, NOW RESIDING AT KAMPLI,
TALUK. HOSAPETE, DIST. BALLARI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER, KOPPAL-583231.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Digitally signed by MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,
JAGADISH T R
Location: High KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN CODE-.
Court of Karnataka, ...RESPONDENTS
Dharwad Bench
(BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, PRAYING TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN LAC NO.52/2012 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
GANGAVATI AND BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.06.2014 BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM RS. 2,54,760/- PER ACRE TO
RS.15,00,000/- PER ACRE WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS IN
RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 03 ACRES 23
GUNTAS OF RS.NO.141(141/2) SITUATED AT BENNUR VILLAGE
GANGAVATI TALUK IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB
MFA No. 100255 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 18941 by the claimant seeking for higher compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 25.06.2014 passed in LAC No.52/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi2.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, the appellant is the owner of land bearing RS No.141 (141/2) measuring 3 acres 23 guntas situated at Bennur village, Ganagavathi Taluk, Koppal District. The State Government issued Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 on 12.05.2010. Subsequently, Final Notification came to be issued for acquiring the subject land along with other. The respondent No.1 passed award on 29.02.2012 by determining the market value of the land at Rs.36,160/- per acre. The 1 'Act, 1894', for short 2 'Reference Court', for short -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 appellant sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Act, 1894.
3. The respondents contested the reference proceedings. The Reference Court recorded the evidence of the parties. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P56. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence, however, with consent got marked a copy of the award of LAO as Ex.R1. The Reference Court on appreciation of evidence on record, under impugned judgment and award, re-determined the market value of the land at Rs.2,54,760/- per acre along with statutory benefits and interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed seeking higher compensation.
4. Sri. Lingaraj Maradi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court committed a grave error in re-determining the market value of the subject land at Rs.2,54,760/- per acre, as the land in question are irrigated lands and highly potential for non-agricultural purpose. It is submitted that the lands are situated to very near to Gangavathi City and surrounding lands have already been -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 developed, which has not been properly appreciated by the Reference Court. It is submitted that the claimant has produced Sale Deeds at Ex.P13 to P15 of the neighboring village, which should have been the basis to determine the market value of the subject land. It is submitted that the consent award is passed for the adjacent lands, which has been acquired for the benefit of Railways, at Rs.6 lakh per acre for dry land, Rs.8 lakh per acre for light tari and Rs.15 lakh per acre for irrigated lands, hence, the same yardstick is required to be applied to the land in question and appropriate compensation may be awarded as per Ex.P21. He submits that as per Ex.P18, the Government Guidance Value for the land in question is Rs.4,50,000/- per acre, hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the market value by considering the evidence on record.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits that the Ex.P13 to P15 are the Sale Deeds of some different villages, that cannot be the basis to determine the market value of the land in question. It is submitted that the consent award at Ex.P21 is again of different acquisition -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 and the amount mentioned in the consent award includes statutory benefits and interest and that cannot be the basis to determine the market value of the land in question. It is further submitted that the guidance value produced at Ex.P18 is of the year 2013 and 2014. He places on record the guidance value of the subject lands and points out that the guidance value fixed by the government for the year 2009-10 is Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned HCGP and perused the grounds of appeal including the reference Court records. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any interference.
7. The appellant is the owner of the land bearing RS No.141 (141/2) measuring 3 acres 23 guntas situated at Bennur village, Ganagavathi Taluk, Koppal District, which was acquired under Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 on 12.05.2010. The respondent No.1/SLAO passed an award on 29.02.2012 by determining the market -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 value of the subject land at Rs.36,160/- per acre. The reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,54,760/- per acre.
8. Before adverting to the issue involved in this appeal, it would be useful to refer the relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Apex Court in CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, POONA & ANOTHER3, as under:
4. 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.
1. By Certificate under Article 133( l)(a) of the Constitution of India as it existed at the material time. (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, 3 (1988) 3 SCC 751 -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 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 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 Section 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.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 (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. situation in the interior at a
distances from the Road.
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with
very small frontage compared
to death.
4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level requiring the
depressed portion to be filled
up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed
locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land under 6. some special
acquisition. disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB
MFA No. 100255 of 2016
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. 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.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.
9. Keeping in mind the broader guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, we consider the case on hand. The learned counsel for the appellant buttress his submissions by placing reliance on Ex.P13 to P15, the Sale Deeds and seek to re-determine the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 market value based on those sale deeds. We have meticulously gone through the three sale deeds referred by the appellant dated 5.8.2009, 1.7.2009 and 19.6.2009. The case on hand, the preliminary notification dated 12.05.2010, which is approximately one year later to the sale deeds. The covenants of the sale deeds indicate that the land involved in the said sale deeds are of Karatagi Village and the subject matter of acquisition is of Bennur Village of Gangavathi Taluk. There is no evidence on record as to distance between Karatagi Village and Bennur village. In addition, the subject matter of land covered in Ex.P13 to P15 are small extents of lands i.e. 4800 sq.ft., 2575 sq.ft. and 5495 sq.ft. respectively. In other words, the lands alienated under the aforesaid exhibits are converted land and sold on square feet basis. The sale consideration in the aforesaid sale deeds are Rs.3,12,000/-, Rs.2,27,000/- and Rs.3,57,000/-. If the sale considerations mentioned in Ex.P13 to P15 are taken into account, it would be between Rs.28 lakhs to Rs.38 lakhs per acre approximately. The lands covered under the aforesaid sale deeds cannot be considered as a basis to determine the land in question as the acquired lands are admittedly are agricultural lands and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 situated in different village. Hence, Ex.P13 to P15 can be some guiding feature to appreciate the market value of the land in question and the same cannot be sole basis to determine the market value.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed heavy reliance on Ex.P21-Consent Award and insists to determine the market value of the subject land based on consent award. We have perused the consent award entered between the land owner and acquiring body. The consent award indicates that the various lands of Mukkunpi village and other 19 villages of Gangavathi Taluk have been acquired for the purpose of construction of Munirabad to Mehaboob Nagar Railway line and the preliminary notification in the said acquisition was issued on 30.07.2009. Though the acquisition notification is just before preliminary notification issued under the present case, the subject matter of the acquired land in the notification indicates that the small extent of various land owners has been acquired for laying Munirabad to Mehaboob Nagar Railway line. Hence, the said small extent of land cannot be the basis to consider the market value of the large extent of land in question. The consent award at Ex.P21 indicates that
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 the land owners have agreed to receive total compensation for Rs.6,00,000/- per acre to dry land, Rs.8,00,000/- per acre to light tari and Rs.15,00,000/- to irrigated lands. The consent award includes all the statutory benefits like solatium and interest, which is required to be appropriately deducted from the total amount, then what remains is the market value of the land. So said exercise would be very difficult task as the consent award is passed by the Authorities only with an intention to see that the acquisition proceedings are completed at the earliest and without any litigation. Hence, the consent award at Ex.P21 is again of different village than the subject matter of the land. Thus, the said consent award can be the only guiding feature to appreciate the argument that the lands nearby are under the process of development.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Ex.P18-guidance value of the acquired land and submits that as per the guidance value, the market value should be fixed at Rs.4,50,000/- per acre. Learned HCGP rightly points out that the guidance value notification of the year is 2013 and 2014. The learned HCGP has placed guidance value notification issued by State Government for the year
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 2009-10, which indicates the market value of the irrigated land at Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. Admittedly, the revenue records as well as oral testimony of PW1 indicate that the lands are irrigated lands and the appellant used to grow paddy and other crops. The Reference Court considering the nature of land as irrigated land has determined the market value by adopting capitalization method. The capitalization method adopted by the Reference Court may not be the correct method of determination of market value, when other evidence with regard to market value are available. In the instant case, the appellant has not placed any sale deeds of Bennur village of the relevant year to consider as a basis to determine the market value of the land in question. The documentary evidence relied on by the appellant are of the different village and the market value is on square feet basis. Hence, we are of the considered view that it would be just and appropriate to consider Ex.P18- guidance value notification issued by the Government of Karnataka of the year 2013-14 and the subsequent notification placed by the learned HCGP for the year 2010 to determine the market value of the land in question. Ex.P18 indicates Rs.4,50,000/- per acre to the irrigated land and the notification
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 of the year 2009-10 indicates Rs.1,60,000/- per acre to the irrigated land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases held that while determining the market value of the land under Section 23 of the Act, 1894 cannot be fixed based on the rates mentioned Base Valuation Register i.e. the notification at Ex.P18 and subsequent notification cannot be the sole basis to determine the market value. Those notifications are issued for the collection of stamp duty. The amount referred in the aforesaid notification is generally on lower side than the actual sale considerations paid by the buyer while transacting with the seller. Hence, basing on the guidance value fixed by the Government, we need to ascertain the actual market value of the subject land at the relevant time.
12. We are conscious of the fact that there cannot be any arithmetical precision in determining the market value of the acquired land, more particularly when there is no cogent and legally acceptable evidence on record with regard to the market value of the acquired land, it would be difficult to assess the market value. Considering the Ex.P13 to P15, Ex.P21 and guidance value notification at Ex.18 and subsequent notifications of the relevant year, we are of the considered view
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 that interest of justice would be met if we re-determine the market value at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. We have re- determined the market value of the subject land at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre keeping in mind the fact that the lands are irrigated land and neighboring villages which are situated just 2-3 kms have been developed. We have also kept in mind the average guidance value fixed by the State Government from 2009 to 2014, as a basis to determined the market value of the subject lands at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal stands partly allowed with costs.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is modified by re-determining the market value of the subject lands at Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) per acre with solatium, statutory benefits and interest as per the provision of the Act, 1894.
c) The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount in terms of judgment and
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13019-DB MFA No. 100255 of 2016 award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
d) Registry shall transmit back the original TCR to the Reference Court forthwith.
e) Registry to draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE JTR/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15