Karnataka High Court
Gulappa Basappa Chithapur vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer And on 4 October, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766
MFA No. 102557 of 2016
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102557 OF 2016 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
GULAPPA BASAPPA CHITHAPUR
AGED: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KARADI, TQ: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587118.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S.SANGATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND
THE ASST. COMMISSIONR,
BAGALKOTE-586101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R PATIL, HCGP)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE
Digitally
VN
signed by V
N BADIGER
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD 08.12.2011 PASSED IN
BADIGER Date:
2023.11.09
11:53:15
+0530
LAC.NO.44/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUNAGUND, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766
MFA No. 102557 of 2016
JUDGMENT
1. The land loser who lost 4 acres and 2 guntas of land in Sy. No.8/1 in Karadi Village, Taluk Hunagund, is aggrieved by the compensation determined by the Reference Court in LAC No. 44/2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hunagund. Hence land loser is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Certain admitted facts are noticed as under:
On 23.05.2002, Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act of 1894' for short) was published to acquire the appellant's land. The beneficiary Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL for short) intended to set up its sub-division unit in the acquired land. At the time of acquisition, the land was agricultural land and Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.1,68,092/- per acre. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016
3. The land loser sought enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court accepted the petitioner's plea relating to potential non-agricultural use of the acquired land, deducted 53% of the value towards development charges to form a residential layout, as the claimant before it claimed market value on par with a residential layout. Court determined market value at Rs.3,16,924/- per acre. Thereafter it was further reduced to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre on the premise that the conflicting interest of the land loser and beneficiary has to be balanced.
4. The petitioner is in appeal before this Court seeking Rs.5,00,000/- per acre as the market value.
5. Sri B. S. Sangati, the learned counsel appearing for the land loser would urge that the Reference Court having held that the acquired land is surrounded by various commercial and residential properties erred in fixing the market value at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. He -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016 would urge that Rs.5 lacs per acre should be the market value of the land.
6. It is further urged that 53% deduction made by the Reference Court towards development charges is on the higher side, and it should not exceed 30% as the beneficiary is not forming a residential layout and is using almost 70 to 80% of the acquired land. Thus, there cannot be a deduction beyond 20% to 30% towards development charges are the contention. In support of the contentions, following judgments are cited:-
1. Dyamagouda Paravatgouda Patil deceased by his lrs and another vs. The Special land acquisition officer, NH4, Dharwad and another. Reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 2647 (DB).
2. Mohite Ramappa Boodappa vs. Union of India and anr. Reported in Civil Appeal No(s)19681 of 2017.
3. The special land acquisition officer vs. Vyjanath Since dead by Lrs. Siddappa Patil. Reported in ILR 2006 KAR 154.
4. Nelson Fernandes and Others vs. Special land acquisition officer, South Goa and others.
Reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016
7. Learned Government Advocate defending the judgment and award under challenge, urged that Court has taken into consideration all the relevant factors, like the valuation of the residential site near the acquired land sold in the year 2001, and rightly deducted 53% towards development charges, as the land acquired was agricultural land and arrived at a just valuation of 2,50,000/- per acre.
8. From the judgment and award under challenge, it is apparent that the Reference Court has relied on the Ex.P12-the certified copy of the sale deed pertaining to a residential site measuring 12 X 9 meters sold on 18-04-2001. The said site is from Karadi village and the appellant's land is also from the same village. The Reference Court's finding based on the valuation shown in the sale deed of 2001 is accepted by the State. Even the appellant is basing his claim on the said sale deed. Thus no difficulty to hold that Ex.P-12 can be taken as the -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016 exemplar to determine the market value of the appellant's land acquired on 12.07.2001.
9. The extent of the land sold under Ex.P-12 is 1162.5023 square feet. (Rounded off to 1162 square feet) The appellant's acquired land measured 4 acres and 2 guntas or 162 guntas in all. Thus, the total extent of the land acquired is 1,76,418 square feet. (1089 Sq.ft. per gunta X 162 guntas). Since the site which was sold under Ex.P-12, measured 1,162 square feet, the land measuring 1,76,418 square feet i.e., acquired land, will accommodate 151.82 sites measuring 1,162 square feet. The site in Ex.P-12 measuring 1,162 square feet is sold for Rs.18,000.00 on 18.04.2001. Thus, the total market value of 151.82 sites, each measuring 1,162 square feet, or 162 guntas would be Rs.27,32,760.00. For each gunta, the valuation would be Rs.16,868/- (Rs.27,32,760/162). Per acre, the market value, before the applicable deduction would be Rs.6,74,755/-.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016
10. The Reference Court initially arrived at a valuation of Rs.3,16,924/- per acre after deducting 53% towards development charges. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments cited supra to urge the contentions that a maximum of 20% to 30% can be deducted towards development charges, and 53% deduction is unreasonably high.
11. The learned Government Advocate has referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
(i) Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 763,
(ii) Madhukar s/o Govindrao Kamble and Ors vs. Vidarbha irrigation development corporation and ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.368-369 of 2022 to urge the contention that even the 90% deduction is permissible in appropriate cases.
12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016 The points to be answered are;
(a) When agricultural land is acquired to set up an electric sub-division unit, whether the land loser, claiming compensation on par with a residential site, urge that the deduction towards development charges, should be on par with lesser development charges, on the premise that the beneficiary is not using the land for residential purpose?
(b) Whether the Court after determining the 'market value' of the acquired land, can further reduce the said market value on the premise that the cost of acquisition will be expensive for the beneficiary?
13. Regarding the first point. The land acquired is agricultural land measuring 4 acres and 2 guntas. The Reference Court determined the market value by taking an exemplar of a residential site. Thereafter, deducted 53% of the value towards development charges. The beneficiary -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016 is setting up an electric sub-division unit and not a residential layout and development charges would be less than 20-30%. Thus appellant claims that there cannot be more than 30% deduction towards development charges.
14. In determining the market value of the land, and making deductions towards development charges the law does not provide a straight jacket formula. It has to be decided based on the facts of each case.
15. In this case, the land loser whose land measuring 4 Acres and 2 guntas is acquired, seeks compensation to be determined by taking an exemplar of a residential site (measuring 1162 square feet, in this case). When the beneficiary is using the land for a purpose other than residential purpose, involving less expense towards development compared to the expense to form a residential layout, then the land loser who claims compensation on par with a residential site, for the agricultural land acquired, cannot claim a deduction towards development charges on par with the beneficiary.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016
16. The exemplar cited by the land loser is a residential site measuring 1162 square feet. Obviously, such a site will attract a higher market value in comparison to the market value of the land used by the beneficiary-KPTCL who used it for its sub-division unit.
17. To attract a higher value for his agricultural land, on par with a residential layout, the owner has to develop a layout. The development has its own cost. One cannot form a layout without making provision for the road, drainage and other civic amenities as required under the relevant laws. In that event entire land cannot be marketed. A certain portion of the land will have to be earmarked for the common use of the occupiers of the sites.
18. Though the appellant has relied upon the judgments cited supra to substantiate his contention that deduction should not be beyond 20% on the premise that the beneficiary is using the land without any deduction towards civic amenities and the beneficiary is not forgoing
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016 more than 20% of the land towards roads and drainage, this Court is of the view that the said contention based on nature of use of the property by the beneficiary is not applicable as the land loser is claiming a higher value of a residential site as the basis to determine the market value of his land.
19. Though the State and beneficiary contend that the court can even deduct 90% towards development charges, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out to deduct 90% towards development charges when the valuation arrived at by the Reference Court after making 53% deduction is not questioned by the beneficiary.
20. For the reasons assigned the point No. 1 is answered against the appellant.
21. Answer to the second point. The Reference Court after deducting 53% towards development charges, determined the market value to be Rs.3,16,924/- per acre.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016 The Reference Court then proceeded to hold that the market value determined would be a burden on the government and the conflicting interest of the parties is to be balanced and reduced the market value to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. Whether such a deduction is permissible is the question.
22. Article 300A of the Constitution of India is a Constitutional guarantee, assuring due process by authority of law, while depriving the property of a person. The law provides for compensation to the person deprived of property in the event of acquisition of property by the State. Thus, the payment of compensation on account of the compulsory acquisition of the property is not an empty formality. It is neither a charity nor a favour. In fact, payment of compensation is a statutory duty cast on the State/beneficiary. The compensation to be paid must be just and fair and must conform to the parameters enumerated under the applicable law. The compensation can be termed as just and fair, if it reflects the actual
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016 market value of the property as on the date of acquisition and other statutory benefits. It may not be possible to determine the actual market value of a land with mathematical precision. Nevertheless, the value determined should appeal to the logic as the market value prevailing.
23. When the land loser challenges the award and seeks enhancement of compensation, the Courts must determine the market value of the land as on the date of relevant notification. Once the Court determines the 'market value' of the land acquired, after taking into consideration all the relevant factors, and after applying all deductions permissible under law, the further reduction in 'determined market value' is impermissible. The State/beneficiary cannot urge for further reduction on the 'determined market value' on the plea that the 'market value determined' imposes a huge financial burden. Such deduction is impermissible. The reduction in market value on the premise that the interest of the land loser and the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016 beneficiary is to be balanced is antithetical to the concept of acquisition of property only by authority of law envisaged in Article 300A of the Constitution and the law providing for acquisition of land.
24. Once the 'market value' is determined after taking into account all relevant factors, in accordance with the law, the Court has no discretionary or equity jurisdiction to reduce the 'determined market value' on the specious plea of balancing the conflicting interest of the land loser and the beneficiary. Such an exercise is impermissible under the scheme of the Act of 1984.
25. The courts entrusted with the responsibility of determining the compensation payable under the provisions of the law enabling land acquisitions, do not have the discretionary jurisdiction to reduce the 'market value determined' in accordance with the law.
26. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and award of the
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016 reference Court, reducing the 'market value' to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre, after determining the market value at Rs.3,16,294/- per acre, on the premise that 'market value determined' will be expensive for the State of beneficiary is in the teeth of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and Act of 1984.
27. This Court as noted above, has arrived at a market value of Rs.6,74,755/- per acre before applicable deductions. Considering the fact that the land acquired is a property in a village, a 47% deduction towards development charges would be appropriate. 53% deduction by the reference Court is on the higher side and unjustified.
28. In that event the market value of developed land would be Rs.3,57,620/- per acre. Hence, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court has to be modified and the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,57,620.44/- per acre.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11766 MFA No. 102557 of 2016 Same is rounded off to Rs.3,57,600/- per acre. Hence, the following:-
ORDER a. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. b. Judgment and award dated 08.12.2011 in LAC No.44/2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hunagund, are modified.
c. The market value of the land acquired is fixed at Rs.3,57,600/- per acre with all statutory consequential benefits.
d. Appellant is also entitled to proportionate cost of the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE BRN, VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45