Karnataka High Court
J Raghavendra vs The Special Land Acquisition on 1 December, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
M.F.A. NO.8952 OF 2012 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. J.RAGHAVENDRA
S/O JANA SOMAPPA
AGE 59 YEARS
2. J.GOVINDARAJULU
S/O JANA SOMAPPA
AGE 48 YEARS
3. J.THIPPESWAMY
S/O J.C.SOMAPPA
AGE 59 YEARS
4. J.KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O J.C.SOMAPPA
AGE 55 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
HOLALKERE ROAD
JANA TEXTILE, CHITRADURGA.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.M.E.NAGESH., ADV.,)
AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, KIADB, BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI.K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADV.,)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54 OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
22.5.2012 PASSED IN LAC NO.29/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN), CJM, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED
COMPENSATION AND FURTHER SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK
ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of the compensation, being aggrieved, by the judgment dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Reference Court.
2. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated hereinafter. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) is a statutory body established under the Karnataka Industrial Areas 3 Development Board Act, 1996 with an object of promoting the establishment and orderly development of industrial area. While invoking the powers under Sections 28(1) to 28(8) of the Act, the State Government acquires the land and hands over the same to the Board for setting up Industrial estates. The land situate in Madakaripura Village of Chitradurga Taluk as well as other lands were required for formation of industrial area for establishment and development of industries therein by KIADB. The provisions contained in Section 28(1) of the Act were invoked and a preliminary notification dated 23.09.1989 was issued. Thereafter, notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued on 23.03.1990. The appellants herein were the joint owners of land bearing Sy.No.43/2 measuring 5 acres 32 guntas and Sy.No.43/3 measuring 5 acres and 23 guntas situate at Madakaripura Village. The possession of the aforesaid land was taken on 20.02.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 20.05.1992, by 4 which value of the land was fixed at Rs.8/- per square feet for residential converted sites and for industrial lands at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. The appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Thereupon the reference was made on 07.08.1992. The reference court vide judgment dated 14.08.2009 determined the market value in respect of residential land as well as industrial land at the rate of Rs.15/- per square feet and Rs.75,000/- per acre respectively with consequential benefits.
3. The appellants thereupon filed an appeal under Section 54(1) of the Act before this court viz., M.F.A.No.8714/2009. A bench of this court vide judgment dated 07.12.2009 remitted the matter to the reference court and permitted the parties to adduce additional evidence and directed the reference court to decide the matter afresh. The appellants thereafter adduced the additional evidence and produced sale deeds viz., Ex.P17 to Ex.P27. The reference court vide 5 impugned judgment dated 22.05.2012 determined the market value of the residential land as well as the industrial land at the rate of Rs.18/- per square feet and Rs.75,000/- per acre along with solatium and other statutory benefits admissible under the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the appellants have approached this court seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Land Acquisition Officer in his award had referred to 16 sale deeds, which were admitted by the parties and were executed between 05.8.1987 to 07.08.1987 in respect of adjacent lands and highest rate was Rs.19.58/- per square feet and the lowest rate was Rs.11.66/- per square feet. Thus, the average value of the land was Rs.14.27/- per square feet and the Reference Court ought to have escalated the price at the rate of 10% per annum to the average market price of Rs.14.27/-. It is further submitted that deduction to the 6 extent of 47.89% made on account of development charges is on the higher side, taking into account the fact that the land is situate adjacent to the National Highway. It is also urged that though the appellants have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square feet and have sought compensation in respect of industrial land at the rate of Rs.3 Lakhs per acre. The court has the power to grant the compensation at the enhanced rate. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in 'SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BTDA, BAGALKOT VS. MOHD. HANIF SAHIB BAWA SAHIB', (2002) 3 SCC 688, 'GENERAL MANAGER, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. VS. RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL & ANR.', 2008 AIR SCW 5947, 'K.SHARADARANI SRINIVAS VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.', 2010 AIR SCW 2067, 'HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHOIRTY HARIDWAR VS. RAGHUBIR SINGH, 7 ETC', AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1754 and 'KAMALABAI AND OTHERS VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER, BIJAPUR, KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', (2018) 13 SCC 619 and division bench decision of this court in 'SRI.GAVISIDDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS VS. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA', (2010) 3 KCCR 2448 (DB).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the market value of the land in question has been determined by the Reference Court on the basis of evidence adduced before it. It is further submitted that the appellants have not adduced any evidence to prove the fact that the land in question was converted for residential as well as industrial purposes. It is also submitted that the deduction on account of developmental charges to the extent of 47.89% is just and proper. In support of aforesaid submissions, 8 reliance has been placed on decisions in 'SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. ETC. VS. SIDDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND ORS. ETC., APPEAL (CIVIL) 2587-88 OF 1994, 'THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITIION OFFICER AND ANOTHER VS. SRI.SIDDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND OTHRES ETC, S.L.P.(C)NO.6797/1994, and 'BASANT KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS', (1996) 11 SCC 542.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of well settled principles with regard to determination of market value of the land. The Supreme Court has recognized the principle that the courts can always apply reasonable amount of guess work to balance the equities to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act. [See: 'TRISHALA JAIN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF 9 UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.', (2011) 6 SCC 47 AND 'VITHAL RAO AND ANR. VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER', (2017) 8 SCC 558]. It is equally well settled legal proposition that where several sale deeds are filed, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred for determining the market value. [See: 'ANJALIK MOLU DESSAI VS. STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER', (2010) 13 SCC 710, 'MEHRAWAL KHEWAJI TRUST (REGD.) VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS', (2012) 5 SCC 432].The Supreme Court in 'LALCHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA', (2009) 15 SCC 769 while dealing with the issue of deduction towards development charges in respect of industrial layouts held that deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 50%. In 'HARYANA STATE IDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. UDAL AND OTHERS', 2013 (14) SCC 506 , the Supreme Court in the case of acquisition of land in 10 respect of industrial layout has made a deduction of 50% towards development cost.
7. We may also take note of decision of the Supreme Court in 'SARDAR JOGENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P.', (2008) 17 SCC 133 wherein paragraph 12 it has been held as under:
In ONGC LTD. VS. RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL this Court held that in regard to urban and semi-urban areas, in eth absence of other acceptable evidence a cumulative increase of 10% to 15% was permissible with reference to acquisitions in the 1990s. In the decades preceding 1990s, the quantum of increase was considered to be less than 10% per annum. This Court however observed that transactions beyond five years before the acquisition, should be considered with caution and may not always be a reliable guide.
8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled principles, we may advert to the facts of the case in 11 hand. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Reference Court have found that the highest rate at which the adjacent land has been sold is Rs.19.58/- per square feet in respect of a residential area. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in ANJALIK MOLU DESSAI AND MEHERAWAL KHEWAJI TRUST (REGD.) supra, the highest value should be preferred while determining the market value. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, we determine the market value of the residential land at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet. It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case, there is no evidence with regard to market value of the land situate at Madakaripura Village. Therefore, in view of law laid down in Sardar Joginder Singh supra, 10% of the amount has to be added towards escalation price. Since, the appellants have produced the sale deeds of the year 1987, whereas, the preliminary notification was issued on 23.09.1989, therefore, 20% of the amount is 12 required to be added to the market value. Thus, the market value of the residential land is assessed at Rs.24/- per square feet.
9. From perusal of paragraph 14 of the judgment passed by the Reference Court, it is evident that the land has been converted for residential as well as industrial purposes has not been disputed by the KIADB. It is pertinent to mention here that KIADB has also not led any evidence in rebuttal before the Reference Court. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case and taking into account the fact that the land in question is situate adjacent to highway, the deduction of 49.37% on account of developmental charges is on the higher side and the same is reduced to 30%. Thus, the market value of the land in question is assessed at Rs.16.80/-,which is rounded off to Rs.17/- per square feet. Thus, the market value of the residential land measuring 4,59,558 square feet i.e., 10.55 acres is assessed at Rs.78,12,486/-.
13
The Reference Court has assessed the market value of the industrial land at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per acre in respect of 4 acres of land. The appellants have not demonstrated before this court as to how the amount awarded by the Reference Court is inadequate. Therefore, we maintain the market value assessed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per acre. Needless to state that the appellants shall be entitled to solatium and other interest as are admissible under the provisions of the Act. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the reference court is set aside and is modified.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ss