Karnataka High Court
Shri.Madhukar Dattu Jadhav vs The Asst Commissioner on 10 July, 2023
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
MSA No. 100236 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 100236 OF 2015
BETWEEN
SHRI. MADHUKAR DATTU JADHAV
AGE: 76 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R.O: UGAR KHURD-591316,
TAL: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANAND ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE ASST COMMISSIONER
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
Digitally
signed by
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
CHIKODI-591201,
2023.07.13
12:00:14 - DIST:BELAGAVI.
0700
2. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
GAUGE CONVERSION SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS,
KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580020,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.H.PATIL-HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVARAJ BELLAKKI FOR R2, ADVOCATES)
THIS MSA IS FILED U/O.54(2) OF LA ACT 1894, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 01.08.2015, PASSED IN LACA
NO.370/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKODI, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:
18.12.2010, PASSED IN LAC.NO.100/2005, ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ATHANI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE
APPLICATION FILED U/S.18(1) OF LA ACT.
-2-
MSA No. 100236 of 2015
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
28.06.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Athani, in LAC No.100/2005 and confirmed in LACA No.370/2011 by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original rankings assigned to them before the Reference Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1. That an extent of land measuring 0-30 guntas belonging to claimant in Sy.No.184/1B of Ugar Khurd Village in Athani Taluka has been acquired by the respondents for Meeraj-Londa Broadguage conversion of Railway Line. The preliminary notification was issued on 02.09.2004 and the date of award is 17.06.2005.-3- MSA No. 100236 of 2015
Respondent No.1 after holding an enquiry has passed the award fixing the compensation in respect of acquired land at the rate of Rs.50,325/- per acre on the ground that the acquired land is a dry land. Aggrieved by the said award, respondent No.1/claimant has sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and respondent No.1 has also made reference. The claimant has claimed that the acquired land was N.A. potential land and the market value of acquired land is more than Rs.30,000/- per gunta and hence, he has sought enhancement.
4. The claim of the claimant was objected by the respondents and it is denied that the land acquired was a N.A. potential land and asserted that the compensation awarded by respondent No.1 is proper. The claimant was got examined himself as PW.1 and placed reliance on 10 documents marked at Ex.P1 to P10. The respondent did not lead any evidence. However, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked on behalf of respondents.
5. The Reference Court allowed the reference by fixing the marked value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000/- per gunta and further granted other statutory -4- MSA No. 100236 of 2015 benefits including solatium and 12% additional market value as well as interest from date of 4(1) notification.
6. Being dissatisfaction with this award, the claimant has approached the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi, in LACA No.370/2011. The learned District Judge, after re-appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. Being aggrieved by this award of the Appellate Court, this Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and have wrongly rejected the claim of the appellant for enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per gunta. It is also submitted that the -5- MSA No. 100236 of 2015 deduction of 53% towards civic amenities is not permitted as land is not acquired for any housing purpose. He would also assert that granting of interest from the date of 4(1) notification is improper and interest ought to have been granted from the date of taking possession. He would further contend that as per Ex.P.5 on 15.07.2004 an adjoining plot measuring 54X54 was sold at the rate of Rs.48,000/- and if the same norm is applied, then compensation ought to have been awarded at the rate of 30,000/- per gunta. Hence, he would seek for allowing the appeal by admitting the same.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the arguments regarding 53% deduction towards civic amenities cannot be accepted as the judgment does not disclose deduction at 53% as submitted. He would assert that small piece of land was acquired and it cannot be compared with a plot which is fully developed as referred in the sale deed. He would assert that even if the claim of the appellant as per Ex.P.5 is taken note of, then that plot is measuring 54X54 which is nearly 2 guntas and it is sold for 48,000/-. He would -6- MSA No. 100236 of 2015 also contend that if deduction of civic amenities are taken note of, then the value of the plot will be too low and in fact the Reference Court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per gunta which is on higher side itself. Hence, he would seek for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that 0-30 guntas of land belonging to the claimant situated in Ugar khurd Village, Athani Taluka was acquired for Meeraj-Londa Broadguage conversion. Further it is an admitted fact that the land acquired was an agricultural land. The claimant is mainly relying on Ex.P5- sale deed dated 15.07.2004 wherein a site measuring 54X54 feet was sold for a sum of Rs.48,000/-. It is evident that the said plot was nearly measuring just less than 2 guntas. However, the escalation of Rs.48,000/- is based on development expenses and the said site has undergone civic amenities but in the instant case, admittedly the area acquired was an agricultural land. Even if this Ex.P.5 is taken into consideration and if 53% deduction is taken note of towards civic amenities, the base value of the site will be around Rs.23,000/- to Rs.24,000/-. It is nearly 2 -7- MSA No. 100236 of 2015 guntas, but in the instant case, 0-30 gunta was acquired for Rs.15,000/- which itself is on the higher side. The Reference Court in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of its judgment has discussed this aspect in detail and has rightly come to a conclusion that the market value of the 0-30 gunta of land can be taken at Rs.15,000/- per gunta which would be valued at Rs.6,00,000/- per acre which is more than reasonable.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in MFA No.5845/2001 and MFA CROB. No.113/2003 dated 28.03.2005 (The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Vyjanath) but there in the said case 53% deduction was made towards civic amenities. This Court has held that the deduction towards civic amenities is to be made when the land is acquired for housing purpose, but when the land acquired is fully utilized, the deduction is not permissible. But the citation is not applicable to the case in hand, as in the instant case 53% deduction is not at all made in respect of the acquired land as contended. Hence, the said ground holds no water at all.
-8-MSA No. 100236 of 2015
12. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding interest. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that interest ought to have been awarded from the date of taking actual possession. In this context, he placed reliance on a decision reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1462 (The Commissioner Rehabilitation and Resettlement and Another vs. Smt. Jayashree A. Kotti and Others). But this issue has been covered by the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC 142 (Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - S. 23(1-A) - Additional compensation- Held, if possession is taken prior to publication of S. 4 notification, additional compensation under S. 23(1-A) is payable for period starting from date of publication of S. 4 notification up to date of award - The starting point for purpose of calculating amount payable remains the date of publication of the notification, whether the possession is taker prior to it or later - On facts held, High Court rightly found that appellants were entitled to additional compensation for the period from 8-3-1991 (date of notification) up to 6-2-1993 (date of award) and not -9- MSA No. 100236 of 2015 from 1-6-1977 when possession was taken - Interpretation of Statures - Subsidiary rules - Equitable construction - Held, applicable only if provision is ambiguous."
13. In the instant case admittedly, the possession is taken prior to the publication of 4(1) notification and hence, as per the mandate of the Apex Court, the interest is required to be paid from the date of 4(1) publication. The Reference Court has awarded interest from the publication of 4(1) notification with a liberty to the appellant to claim damages from the date of possession till the date of 4(1) notification. Hence, the said ground is also not available to the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Parappa S/o Basappa Vanarotti and Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another in MFA No.10034/2007 (LAC) dated 20.01.2014 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has considered the deduction of development factor to be made with reference to the price of the small plot in a developed layout and to arrive at a cost of undeveloped land, it will be far more than
- 10 -
MSA No. 100236 of 2015deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized private layout or an industrial layout. Hence, the records disclose that the Reference Court has made proper guess work and considering Ex.P.5 and on the basis of development cost of civic amenities pertaining to plot under Ex.P.5 and considering the area sold under Ex.P.5 has rightly fixed a reasonable market value at Rs.15,000/- per gunta by enhancing the same from Rs.11,435/- fixed by the LAO. Further he has also awarded 30% solatium + 12% additional market value as per statute with interest at the rate of 9% for first year and 15% subsequently with a liberty to claim damages.
14. Under such circumstances, looking to these facts and circumstances, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and confirmed by the District Judge cannot be said to be erroneous or arbitrary so as to call for any interference by this Court. Hence, there are no grounds forthcoming for admitting the appeal and appeal being devoid of any merits does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 11 -MSA No. 100236 of 2015
ORDER The appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSP