Karnataka High Court
Basan Gouda S/O Suganagouda vs The Asst Commr/The Land Acquisition ... on 12 January, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARN
ATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 12Th DAY OF
JANUARY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AS
HOK B. HINCHIGERI
MHA.No.10425/2007 (LAo
BETWEEN:
Basan Gouda,
S/o Suganagouda,
Aged about 42 Years,
0cc: Agriculturist,
R/o Manvi, Tq: Manvi,
Dist: Raichur.
Appellant
(By Sri Veeranagouda for Sri P.S
.Malipatil, Advocates)
AND:
1. The Assistant Commissioner,
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Raichur, Dist: Raichur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
State Highways Planning Autho
rity,
Unit Raichur, Dist: Raichur.
... Respondents
(By Sri Ivlallikarjun Sahukar,
HCGP)
This MFA is filed under Sec
tion 54(1) of LA Act against
judgment and award dated the
9.3.2007 passed in LAC No.15
on the file of the AddI, Civ 8/2004
il Judge (Sr.Dn) at Raichur
allowing the claim partly
petition for compensation
enhancement of compensat see king
ion.
This MFA is coming on for hea
ring this day, Court delivered
the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the award, dated 9.3.2007 passed by the Court of the Ad ditional Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn,), Raichur in LAC No.158/2004.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the shop property measuring 41.62 sq,mtrs. bearin g municipal old No.12-3-22 of Manvi was notified for acquisitio n on 15.3.2001 for the purpos e of widening Raichur Ginegera Road. The final not ification was
--
issued on 14.2.2002 and the award was passed on 9.8.20 02 determining the market value of 59/- per sq.ft. for site and 397/- per sq.tt. for building.
The appellant sought reference invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contendin g that the fixation of the market value by the respondents is on the lower side. The Reference Court raised the amount to 15 1/-
per sq.ft. for site and 484/- per sq.ft. for building.
3. It is this award, which is being assailed in this appeal.
4, Sri Veeranagouda, the learne d counsel for the appellant submits that the Government has taken the possession of the land, which is far in excess of the extent shown in the acquis ition notifications. For the excess ext ent of the land, no compensat ion I. a.
whatsoever is paid. He also submits tha t the value set forth In the sale deeds is not reflective of the real sate consideration, as the parties always want to reduce their liability to pay the stamp value and registration fee.
5. Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the fixation of the market value by the Reference Court Is fair and proper. He prays for the dismissal of this appeal.
6. I have browsed through the L.C.Rs.
The perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Referen ce Court has refused to grant any compensation for the excessi vely acquired land on the basis of the assurance that the separa te acquisition proceedings will be Initiated for the same. I am afraid such an approach on the part of the Reference Court is not sustainable.
7. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provIdes for adjudication of the claimant's objection as to the measurement of the land also.
8. On the Court's pointedly asking the Government Pleader whether the acquisition proceedings are Initiated subsequently ASK 4 for awarding the compensation in respec t of the excess extent of the land, his answer Is in the negative.
9. It is not in dispute that the prelim inary notification (Ex.C2) and the final notification (Ex.C3 ) show the extent of the petitioner's property as 28.99 sq.mtrs.
The joint measurement survey shows that the extent of the land is 44.24 sq.mtrs. The same is reflected in the award at Ex.
C4. Thus, the records unequivocally show that the Go vernment has taken the possession of the excess land measu ring 15.25 sq.mtrs. The appellant is entitled to be compen sated for the said excess extent of the land also.
10. The next question that is requir ed to be examined is whether the determination of the ma rket value by the Reference Court is just. The Reference Court has relied on the sale deed, dated 10.5.1999 (Ex.P1). Under the said sale deed the consideration paid is ?158/- per sq. ft. Yet another sale deed, which has weighed with the Refer ence Court, is the one dated 7.1.2004 (Ex.P2) whereunder the sal e consideration was Z144/- per sq.ft. The Reference Court has taken the average of ?144/- and T158/- and arrived at t151/- per sq.ft.
flak
11. The undervaluing of the property in the sale deed with a view to reduce the liability to pay the stamp fee and the registration fee cannot be overruled. The Ref erence Court has excluded from its co nsideration the com munication received from the Sub-Regis trar's office. The sam e is at Ex.P6. It Is stated that the value of the commercial pr operty on the road situated from the bu s depot to APMC is t250/- sq.ft. for the years 2001-02 and 20 02-03.
12. The Reference Court has excluded th is vital piece of evidence from its cons ideration.
13. The Reference Co urt's averaging of ?144 /- and ?158/-
at ?151/- is also not sustainable. The Ref erence Court ought to have taken the value of the land as Z158/-
per sq.ft. in 1999 and granted the annual es calation from 5% to 10% for two years, as there is time gap of 2 years between the date of the execution of Ex.P1 and the Issuan ce of the preliminar y notification. In m y considered view, the annual escalation of 7.5% would meet the ends of justice in this case. 7.5% of Z158/-
comes to ?11.85/-
for one year. For two years it comes to ?23.
7/-. If ?23.7/- are added to t158/-, it co mes to ?181.7/-. The fixation of the marke t fiSt 6 value is not only a complicated exercise but also involves certain amount of guess-work. I do not propose to hasten the fixation of the market value of the land at ?181.7/-
per sq.ft. All other materials also require to be looked into.
The Sub-Registrar's letter, dated 16.2.2005 marked as Ex.P6 stat es that the value of the commercial property on the road situated from bus depot to APMC is t250/- per sq.ft. for the years 2001-0 2 and 2002-03.
14. However, I do not propose to award ?250/- based on the said letter because, the author of the lett er is not examined.
It is not known whether the appellant's property and the properties in respect of which Ex.P6 is issued are similarly situated. There is no effective cross-examinat ion on Ex.P6.
15. Considering these aspects of the matter, I deem it safe and just to award the market value of the land at the rate of t200/- per sq.ft.
16. No arguments are advanced for raising the value of the building nor I find the materials war ranting any upward determination of the building value. Therefo re, the awarding of Z484/- per sq.ft. by the Reference Court for the building remains unaltered.
flail 7
17. Even when I have no hesitation in (a) holding that the respondents are liable to pay the compensation for the excessively occupied land (b) in re-determining the value of the land by raising It from ?151/- to ?200/- per sq.ft. and (c) In retaining the value of the building, the matter cannot attain the finality in this appeal. It is not known what is the exact extent of the land and of the buildings. In several documents, the land area and the built-up area are shown together. The evidence placed on the record is not adequate to give the finding as to what is the extent of the land and how much the building portions measure. I am therefore constrained to remand this matter to the Reference Court for the limited purpose of ascertaining the exact extent of the land and of the built portions thereon. It is made clear that the remand is only for this specified purpose.
18. In the result, I allow this appeal in part. I hold that the appellant is entitled to the compensation for the excessively occupied land and raise the market value of the land from ?151/-
to T200/- and confirm the building value at the rate of 484/-
per sq.ft. Needless to observe that the appellant is also entitled to all the statutory benefits, interest and the proportionate costs.
IBH.
S
19. The appellant and the respondents shall appear before the Reference Court on 12.2.2012 wIthou t waiting for any notice from the Reference Court. They are required to lead the evidence only on how much the total land measures and how much the built portions measure.
Thereafter, the Reference Court shall compute the amounts pay able as per the price for the land fixed herein and for the buildin gs as per the rate fixed by the Reference Court in the impugned award.
20. The Reference Court shall dispose of the remanded matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of four months from the dat e of the production of the certified copy of today's judgment.
Sd! iUDG MD