Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acqusition Officer vs Jali Vamadevappa S/O Late Lingappa on 4 November, 2020
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
M.S.A No.100031/2015 (LAC)
Between
The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Karnataka Industrial Area Development
Board, Dharwad, represented by SLAO
KIADB, Davangere Division
Davangere. ...Appellant
(By Sri Shashank S Hegde, Advocate)
And
Sri Jali Vamadevappa
s/o late Lingappa
Age 89, Occ: Agriculture
r/o Sankalapura village
Tq: Hospet, Dist: Ballari
Since deceased by his L.Rs.
1(a) Dr.Jali Mallikarjun
s/o Vamadevappa
age 49, Occ: Business
r/o Om Bungalow, No.7,
Race Course, Double Road
T V Center, Jadhav Nagar
Tq & Dist: Belagavi - 19.
2
1(b) Jali Lingaraj s/o Vamadevappa
Age 58, Occ: Business.
1(c) Jali Basavaraj s/o Vamadevappa
Age 55, Occ: Business.
Both are r/o #4/514, Patel Nagar
Opp: Andhra Bank, Hospete-583201.
1(d) Jali Manjunath s/o Vamadevappa
Age 53, Occ: Business
r/o Santrupti Nivas, #C-40
5th Main, 1st Cross, Kuvempunagar
Contonment Road, Ballari-583104.
1(e) Jali Prakash s/o Vamadevappa
Age 50, Occ: Business.
1(f) Jali Suresh s/o Vamadevappa
Age 55, Occ: Business.
Both r/o #4/514, Patel Nagar
Opp: Andhra Bank, Hospete-583201.
1(g)Jali Kotresh s/o Vamadevappa
Age 47, Occ: Business
r/o Flat - SE, Block - 8
Jains Lences, No.15, Reddy
Street, Virugumbakam
Chennai-92.
(Amended v/o dtd:27.2.2020) ... Respondents
(By Sri L T Mantagani, Sri N J Appannanavar,
Advocates for proposed R1(a to g)
This MSA is filed under Section 54(2) of LA Act
against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2013
3
passed in MA No.4/2012 on the file of the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hospet,
dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and
order dated 8.9.2011 passed in LAC No.3/2007 on the
file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Hospete, allowing the reference
petition filed under Section 18(1) of LA Act.
This MSA coming on for admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 19.10.2013 passed in MA No.4/2012 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hospet, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated 8.9.2011 passed in LAC No.3/2007 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hospete, allowing the reference petition filed under Section 18(1) of LA Act.
4
3. The land bearing Sy.No.164/1B measuring 3.45 acres situated at Sankalapur village in Hospet Taluk, Ballary District was acquired by issuing a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of KIAD Act on 12.7.1984 for industrial purpose and the same is culminated into passing of an award dated 12.6.1996, whereby the market value of the land in question was fixed at Rs.16,800/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Claimants not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, preferred a petition under Section 18(1) of the LA Act for enhancement of compensation awarded by the SLAO.
4. The Reference Court for fixing the market value of the land has taken into consideration that the land is situated adjacent to Hospet-Bellary National Highway i.e. NH - 63 as per Map - Ex.P16. It has also taken note of the fact that by the side of the said road, 5 there is Karnataka Oil Factory and Mahendra, Maruti Car and Tata Car showrooms and also a layout is formed by Hospet Urban Development Authority and also Exs.P7 to P9, which are sale deeds dated 11.11.1994 executed by the City Improvement Board, Hospet, under which plot measuring 30 x 50 ft. was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.33,000/- has determined the market value of the land in question at Rs.1,09,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein filed Misc. Appeal No.4/2012 under Section 54 of the LA Act before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellary sitting at Hospet.
5. The District Court after re-appreciation of the evidence on record held that the market value fixed by the Reference Court is just and proper. The appellant challenging the judgment and award passed 6 by the Reference Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court has filed this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Exs.P7 to P9 , which are sale deeds of the year 1994, should not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land in question. He submits that in respect of the land situated in the very same village, the Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/- per acre. He further submits that since the land in question is an agricultural land, deduction of 25% was on the lower side.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant justifies the award passed by the Reference Court as well as the District Court.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7
9. The Reference Court taking into consideration Ex.P7 to Ex.P9, which are the sale deeds in respect of 30 X 50 feet plots formed by the Hospet Urban Development Authority situated nearer to the acquired land were each sold for sale consideration of Rs.33,000-/- and also taking into consideration the potentiality of the site and also that the entire extent of land was utilized by beneficiary for industrial purpose has fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs.1,09,000-/- per acre. The 1st Appellate Court after re-appreciation of the evidence on record has concurred with the view taken by the Reference Court.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board and others -vs- P M Mallappa and others in Civil Appeal Nos.2228-34 of 1997 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.24593- 99 of 1996) reported in (1997) 4 SCC 429. In the said 8 judgment, the Apex Court has held that the potential value of the land shall be determined for the land existing as on the date of notification and not after subsequent developments have taken place. In the present case, even though the Reference Court has taken into consideration the sale deeds, which were executed for a consideration of Rs.33,000/- in the year 1994 for the purpose of fixing the market value, the Reference Court by adopting 10% scaling down method has determined the market value at Rs.1,09,000/- per acre. It is pertinent to state here that the award was passed in the year 1996 and the sale deeds - Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 were executed in the year 1994. Hence, the Reference Court was justified in taking into consideration Exs.P7 to P9 and potentiality of land for the purpose of determining the market value. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Reference Court 9 has deducted 50% towards development charges and not 25% as submitted by the learned counsel for appellant. The land in question is surrounded by developed lands and having regard to the potentiality of the land and also that the entire extent of acquired land has been utilized for industrial purposes, the Reference Court has rightly deducted 50% towards development charges.
11. The market value fixed at Rs.1,09,000-/- per acre is just and proper and the same cannot be said to be excessive and exorbitant in the absence of contrary evidence. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Reference Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.
12. In view of dismissal of appeal, I.A.No.2/2016 does not survive for consideration.
10
13. I.A.No.3/2016 is filed for refund of court fee. It is submitted that excess court fee of Rs.11,893-/- was paid at the time of filing the appeal. Registry to verify and refund the excess court fee paid, if any, in favour of the appellant.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm