Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs N.V.Giribabu on 13 August, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
M.F.A NO.101519 OF 2014 (LAC)
C/W. M.F.A. NO.101516 OF 2014 (LAC)
M.F.A. NO.101517 OF 2014 (LAC)
M.F.A. NO.101518 OF 2014 (LAC)
M.F.A. CROB NO.100035 OF 2015 (LAC)
M.F.A. CROB NO.100036 OF 2015 (LAC)
M.F.A. CROB NO.100037 OF 2015 (LAC)
IN MFA NO.101519/2014
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
1. N. V. GIRI BABU S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO,
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
R/O. MUNDARAGI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BELLARY,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1A. SUDHARANI W/O. LATE. N. V. GIRI BABU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUNDARAGI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. BELLARY.
1B. SRI. RAKSHIT S/O. LATE N. V. GIRI BABU,
AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUNDARAGI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. BELLARY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
1C. SRI. SAISEETARAM S/O. LATE. N. V. GIRI BABU,
AGE 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUNDARAGI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY
AT BELLARY, IN LAC NO.4/2010, AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE
REFERENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA NO.101516/2014
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
V. BHOJARAJ S/O. V. GANGAMMA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY
AT BELLARY, IN LAC NO.5/2010, AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE
REFERENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
IN MFA NO.101517/2014
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
P. SURESH BABU S/O. LATE SRI. SATHYANARAYANA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY
AT BELLARY, IN LAC NO.2/2010, AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE
REFERENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA NO.101518 OF 2014
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
KURUBARA ERANNA S/O. SHRI. NAGADEVAPPA,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY
AT BELLARY, IN LAC NO.3/2010, AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE
REFERENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA CROB NO.100035/2015
BETWEEN
V. BHOJARAJ S/O. SMT. V. GANGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BALLARI.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
CUM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BALLARI,
BALLARI REVENUE SUB DIVISION, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB FILED IN MFA NO.101516/2014 IS FILED
U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM RS.11,00,000/-
(ELEVEN LAKHS RUPEES) TO RS.15,10,000/- (FIFTEEN LAKH TEN
THOUSAND) PER ACRE WITH STATUTORY BENEFITS IN LAC
NO.5/2010 DATED 26.04.2013 BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY AT BELLARY AND ETC.
IN MFA CROB NO 100036 OF 2015
BETWEEN
P. SURESH BABU
S/O. LATE SRI. SATHYANARAYANA,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BALLARI.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
RESPONDENT
(SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB FILED IN MFA NO.101517/2014 IS FILED
U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM RS.11,00,000/-
(ELEVEN LAKHS RUPEES) TO RS.15,10,000/- (FIFTEEN LAKH TEN
THOUSAND) PER ACRE WITH STATUTORY BENEFITS, IN LAC
NO.2/2010 DATED 26.04.2013 BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY AT BELLARY AND ETC.
IN MFA CROB NO.100037/2015
BETWEEN
KURUBARA ERANNA S/O. NAGADEWAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELLARY
REVENUE SUB DIVISION, BELLARY-583101
RESPONDENT
(SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB FILED IN MFA NO.101518/2014 IS FILED
U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM RS.11,00,000/-
(ELEVEN LAKHS RUPEES) TO RS.15,10,000/- (FIFTEEN LAKH TEN
THOUSAND) PER ACRE WITH STATUTORY BENEFITS.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
THESE APPEALS AND CROB PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 05.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) These appeals and cross objections are preferred by the KIADB and the claimants respectively being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 26.04.2013 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court' for short). The particulars are as under:
Sl.No. LAC.No. MFA FILED CROB FILED BY BY KIADB CLAIMANTS
1. 4/2010 101519/2014 ------2. 5/2010 101516/2014 100035/2015
3. 2/2010 101517/2014 100036/2015 4. 3/2010 101518/2014 100037/2015
2. The parties henceforth are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court for the purpose of convenience. The land loosers are referred to the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS claimants and the beneficiary from acquisition is referred to as KIADB.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals and cross objections are that the State Government issued preliminary notification on 24.04.2005 to acquire various extents of lands including the lands of the claimants for establishment of industrial area. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining the market value of the lands at Rs.41,300/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the same under the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2013 at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the KIADB has filed these appeals and the claimants have filed the cross objections.
4. Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Reference Court committed grave error in determining the market value of the lands in question at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre by ignoring the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is submitted that the location of the acquired lands is within the developed -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS area as is evident from the Court Commissioner's report at Ex.C.1 and the sketch at Ex.C.2. However, the Reference Court has not considered the said evidence. It is further submitted that the acquired lands are situated next to the existing industrial area formed by the KIADB and the acquired lands are within 1 Km from Bellary - Bangalore Highway. The Reference Court ignored Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.25 the Yield Certificates issued by the Horticulture Department which indicate that the crops grown in the acquired lands are commercial crops having high yield and the trees standing in the acquired lands are the fruit bearing trees and the Reference Court ought to have considered the same and awarded higher compensation. It is also submitted that if the evidence on record is considered, the claimants are entitled at least Rs.14 to Rs.15 Lakhs per acre as compensation with all statutory benefits. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeals filed by the claimants.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
5. Sri.Gurudev I.Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for the KIADB submits that the claimants have failed to prove the correct market value of the acquired lands before the Reference Court. It is submitted that the Reference Court committed an error in considering Ex.P.1- the Sale Deed of Bellary village as the acquired lands are from Mundargi village. It is submitted that the Reference Court has not assigned any reasons in the impugned judgment to arrive at the conclusion and for enhancement of the compensation to Rs.11,00,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the determination of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer is based on the nature of lands acquired and its market value as on the date of preliminary notification and the same is required to be confirmed by setting aside the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS *THE GENERAL MANAGER, OIL AND NATURAL GAS LIMITED V/S RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS1 *MAYADEVI(DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER2 *BIJENDER AND ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS3 *SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ORS. V/S KURRA SAMBASIVA RAO AND OTHERS4
6. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the claimants, learned counsel for the KIADB and perused the material on record including the trial Court records. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals and cross objections is whether the market value determined by the Reference 1 MANU/SC/7896/2008 2 (2018) 2 SCC 474 3 MANU/SC/1362/2017 4 MANU/SC/0690/1997
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
Court under the common impugned judgment is
sustainable in law or whether calls for further
enhancement?
7. The answer to the above point is 'affirmative' and 'negative' for the following reasons:
(a) Before adverting to the issue involved in these matters, we go through the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER POONA AND ANOTHER5 which has also been followed by this Court in MFA.No.100255/2016 which is extracted 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(1)(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 5 AIR 1988 SC 1652
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is Inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the 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.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
(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 4. lower level requiring
area. the depressed portion
to be filled up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from
developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land under 6. some special
acquisition. disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser.
7. special value for an owner
of an adjoining property to
whom it may have some
very special advantage.
15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS land say 500 to 1000 sq.yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 1000 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." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE GENERAL MANAGER, OIL AND NATURAL GAS LIMITED referred supra held that the reference to the future sale transaction, subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of the acquired lands. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAYA DEVI referred supra. In the case of BIJENDER AND ORS. referred supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the transaction relating to
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS acquired land of recent dates or in the neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar potentiality or fertility or other advantages features are considered to be relevant piece of evidence. In the case of SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ORS. referred supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the burden of proof is on the land owner to prove the market value of the land in question. Further, the Court should sit in the arm chair of prudent willing purchaser in the open market and see whether he would be willing to offer the same price as is proposed to be fixed by the land acquisition officer as a market value for the same or similar land possessed of all the advantages or features.
(b) Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred supra now we deal with the case on hand. The State Government issued preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act' for short) on
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS 24.04.2005 to acquire various extents of lands including the lands of the claimants for establishment of industrial area. The final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act came to issued on 28.12.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 30.04.2007 by determining the market value of the lands in question at Rs.41,300/- per acre. The land losers sought reference and the Reference Court under the impugned common judgment and award enhanced the market value of the lands in question at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre.
(c) The particulars of the lands involved in these appeals are as under:
LAC Claimant (s) Survey Extent in MFA No. No. No. Acres 2/2010 P. Suresh Babu 36 & 98 3.70 & 6.36 101517/2014 3/2010 Kurubara Eranna 96 6.63 101518/2014 4/2010 N. V. Giribabu 97/A 5.18 101519/2014 5/2010 V. Bhojaraj 97/B 6.00 101516/2014
(d) The parties adduced evidence before the Reference Court. The claimants examined PW.1 & PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.26. The respondent
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS examined RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.5. The Court Commissioner was examined as CW.1 and got marked Exs.C.1 and C.2. The Reference Court mainly placing reliance on Ex.P.1 - the Sale Deed, enhanced the compensation to Rs.11,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court though made a reference to Exs.P.1 to P.26 considered Ex.P.1 as the basis to determine the market value of the lands in question. The Reference Court taking note of Exs.P.21 to P.25 held that the claimants used to grow horticulture crops and used to generate income ranging from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- annually. However, those exhibits were not taken into consideration while determining the market value of the lands in question.
(e) The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 indicates that the subject lands were acquired for formation of industrial area by the KIADB and before the acquisition, they used to grow horticulture crops those lands and it was claimed that they used to generate income of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- annually. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses indicates that they have planted pomegranate trees, drumstick trees, anjur trees, tamarind tree, coconut tree, neem tree and based on that, they tried to prove the income arising from the acquired lands. However, those evidences are self serving statements of the claimants and the Reference Court has rightly not placed any reliance on their oral testimonies. Ex.P.21 is the Crop Yield Certificate dated 16.01.2013 issued by the Senior Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, Bellary which indicates that, different fruit bearing trees would start yielding fruits from two to three years, the coconut trees would start yielding from four to seven years, drumstick trees would start yielding from eight months of their plantation and the said document does not indicate that a particular number of trees are planted in their lands and the approximate income for such trees. The certificate at Ex.P.21 is the general statement of the Officer of the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS Horticulture Department to indicate as to when the pomegranate trees, anjur trees, coconut trees and drumstick trees would start the yield from the date of plantation and their life span. The said exhibit cannot be the basis to determine the market value of the lands in question. Ex.P.22 is the photograph showing the existence of fruit bearing trees. However, the photograph at Ex.P.22 cannot be the basis to come to a conclusion that the claimants were earning a particular amount per year to determine the market value of the lands in question. Exs.P.23 to P.25 are the valuation certificates in respect of Survey Nos.96, 97/A and 97/B. The said valuation certificates in respect of Survey No.96 indicate the valuation of the trees at Rs.1,46,844/-, in respect of the Survey No.97/B at Rs.9,78,440/- and in respect of Survey No.97/A at Rs.7,27,194/-. The aforesaid exhibits cannot be fully relied as the claimants have not examined the authors of Exs.P.21, 23 to P.25. And these exhibits cannot be the basis to determine the market value of the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS lands in question in the absence of better particulars. Exs.P.9 to P.19 are the judgments of the Reference Courts and this Court. A perusal of the aforesaid exhibits would indicate that the acquisition in the aforesaid cases is of the year 1989 for the purpose of formation of layout by the Bellary Urban Development Authority. In our considered view, the preliminary notification in the aforesaid exhibits was issued on 24.08.1989 and in the instant case the preliminary notification was issued on 24.04.2005. Hence, Exs.P.9 to P.19 cannot be basis to determine the market value of the lands in question.
(f) The claimants produced Exs.P.1 to P.9 - the certified copies of the sale deed of Bellary village of different dates. The particulars of Exs.P.1 to P.7 are extracted herein below:
P-1 Survey No. 10 1,31,000/- 13,10,000/-
Sale Deed 280/H2, in (Per Acre)
Dated Ballari Village
19.01.2005
(Pg.91)
P-2 Survey No. 16 Guideline Value Guideline Value
Sale Deed 733//B, part Rs. 1,26,000/- Rs. 7,86,700/-
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
Dated in Ballari
18.02.2005 Village 99,000/- 6,18,750/-
(Pg.93) (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
P-3 Survey No. 25 3,28,000/- 13,12,000/-
Sale Deed 235/B/1a1b (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
Dated in Ballari
21.02.2005 Village
(Pg.98)
P-4 Survey No. 10 96,000/- 9,60,000/-
Sale Deed 982B/3/a, in (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
Dated Ballari Village
07.02.2003
(Pg.101)
P-5 Survey No. 11 1,25,000/- 11,36,400/-
Sale Deed 929/A1e piki (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
Dated in Ballari
27.03.2003 Village
(Pg.104)
P-6 Survey No. 09 1,04,000/- 11,55,500/-
Sale Deed 929/A1/F, in (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
Dated Ballari Village
13.05.2003
(Pg.108)
P-7 Survey No. 03 33,000/- 11,00,000/-
Sale Deed 821/A/2, piki (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
Dated in Ballari
16.05.2003 Village
(Pg.110)
Exs.P.1 to P.7 are the sale exemplars which can be considered to determine correct market value of the acquired lands as no other legally acceptable evidence is available on record. We are of the view that there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood and placing reliance on Exs.P1 to P7 is reasonably safe.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS Admittedly, the determination of market value should be as on 24.04.2005 i.e., the date of issuance of preliminary notification. Ex.P.1 - sale deed dated 19.01.2005 is of the Bellary village and not of the Mundargi village and Exs.P.2 to P.9 are also of the Bellary village. The aforesaid sale transactions are on different dates from 13.05.2003 to 19.01.2005. The extent in the aforesaid sale deeds is a small extent of land as can be seen from the schedule to the aforesaid sale deeds. The sale consideration in Exs.P.1 to P.7 is ranging from Rs.6,18,750/- to Rs.13,12,000/-. Though the sale deeds at Exs.P.1 to P.7 are not of the same village, the covenant of the sale deeds indicates the nature of lands covered in the said sale deed which are agricultural lands having irrigation facility and the acquired lands are also agricultural lands having irrigation facility. The oral evidence of CW.1 and his report at Ex.C.1 indicate that the Court Commissioner has inspected the land and as per his report it demonstrates that, surrounding lands to
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB MFA No. 101519 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014 MFA No. 101517 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS the lands in question have been developed. The report of the Court Commissioner indicates that at the Southern portion of the acquired lands, the Housing Board has acquired the lands for formation of layouts and within the distance of 1 km of the acquired lands, there exists Bellary - Bangalore Highway, electric transmission station is at the distance of 1 ½ km, Ring road is at the distance of 1 km and Mundargi village limits is within 1 km, within the distance of 3 ½ km there exists Government Medical College and within the distance of 5 kms Krishnadevaraya University has come up. The Court Commissioner is of the opinion that the lands are worth more than Rs.50,00,000/-. Admittedly, the report is dated 19.06.2012 which is after a period of 7 years of the issuance of preliminary notification. Hence, the report with regard to the development of the surrounding areas of the acquired lands cannot be taken into account to come to the conclusion that at the time of acquisition, the lands in question were having a potential to consider
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
as developed lands. The report of the Court
Commissioner is not supported with any of the
documentary evidence to substantiate the assertion made in the report at Ex.C.1.
(g) We have meticulously gone through Exs.P.1 to P.7, the sale deeds referred supra wherein, the various extents of lands were alienated from 2003 to 2005 and the sale consideration shown in the aforesaid exhibits is ranging from Rs.9,60,000/- to Rs.13,12,000/-. Taking note of the sale examples as per Exs.P.1 to P.7, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court though not assigned the detailed reasons to arrive at a conclusion and to re-determine the compensation at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre, we are of the view that the determination of the market value arrived by the Reference Court at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre is just and proper and does not call for any modification. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
ORDER
MFA.Nos.101519, 101516, 101517 and 101518 of 2014 and MFA.CROB.Nos.100035, 100036 and 100037 of 2015 are dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1