IMPORTANT POINT
In land acquisition cases, while determining the compensation, deduction on account of development charges from the price fixed cannot be made as the base price had been determined in the earlier cases after taking into account the development charges.

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

2. This order shall dispose of CA No. 12515 of 1996, CA Nos. 13370-13371/1996 and CA No. 2238-42 of 2002 (@ SLP. (C) Nos. 21304-21308 of 1996) as common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals. The facts of Civil Appeal Nos. 1552-1554 of 2000 being different would be referred to in the later part of this judgment.

3. For the disposal of Civil Appeal Nos. 12515 of 1996, Civil Appeal Nos. 13370-71 of 1996 and CA No. 2238-2242 of 2002 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21304-21308 of 1996, the facts are referred to from Civil Appeal No. 12515 of 1996.

4. The brief facts are as follows:

The State of Karnataka issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) seeking to acquire the plots belonging to the claimants of Village Murnal for a public purpose, namely, Bagalkot new township. The notification was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 19th July, 1985. The declaration under Section 6 was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 14th August, 1987. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot passed the award on 3rd June, 1988. He fixed the market value of the acquired plots at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per acre treating the land as agricultural.

5. Aggrieved by the award the claimants submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the market value. In the reference application under Section 18, it was alleged by the claimants that before passing the award, the Land Acquisition Officer did not issue any notice; the compensation awarded was too low, meagre and inadequate. The market value of the acquired property was more than Rs. 30/- per sq. ft., the method adopted for valuing the property was not proper and legal. The Land Acquisition Officer illegally treated the land to be agricultural. It was stated that the land under acquisition fell within the municipal limits of Bagalkot. On notice being served, respondents put an appearance through the AGP.

6. In support of their case, the claimants examined PW1 and PW2. Exhibits P1 to P29 were got marked. Respondents did not produce any evidence.

7. The reference Court on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the acquired plots were on the southern side of the Belgaum-Raichur road at a distance of 200 feet. On one side of the Belgaum-Bagalkot road, plots were situated and on the other side there was engineering college campus and K.I.D. Colony staff quarters etc.. The plots were adjacent to the engineering college. Near about the acquired plots some other persons had carved out plots on which construction was going on. PW1 stated that he was preparing to put up the building on the plot but in the meanwhile the Government acquired the land. Vidhyagiri Housing Colony, BTDA Office, new Circuit House, engineering college hostel and staff quarters were adjacent to the land acquired. From this it was concluded by the Reference Court that the land under acquisition was surrounded on all four sides by buildings and had a lot of potential for further development. A finding was recorded that the land under acquisition was within the municipal limits.

8. No evidence was produced by the parties by way of comparable sale transactions to prove the market value. Evidence was also not forthcoming for adoption of the capitalisation method. On behalf of the claimants, reliance was placed on Ex. P.27, a notification issued under Section 4 dated 19th January, 1978 by the Housing Urban Development Corporation and the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 240 of 1981 relating thereto which was later confirmed in appeal by the High Court.

9. It was noticed by the reference Court that the notification. Ex. P.27, was dated 19th January, 1978. The land under acquisition under that notification was in close proximity of the land under acquisition in these appeals. The reference Court had determined the market value of the land in LAC No. 240 of