IMPORTANT POINT
Long pendency of a case is an important factor to be considered while invoking Order XLI, rule 27, CPC.

JUDGMENT

Ganguly, J. —

1. In these civil appeals, the dispute is primarily over the quantum of the market value of the land acquired by the Government of Karnataka (hereinafter ‘the said Government’).

2. Pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Karnataka Gazette on 16.05.1991 an extent of 76 acres and 10 guntas of land situated in Gadag were acquired for Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter ‘the Board’). The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at Rs.35,000/- per acre and passed an award to that effect on 5th March, 1994. Assailing the said quantum, the landowners filed a reference. The Reference Court on a detailed consideration of the matter and after examining 22 witnesses and scrutinizing about 35 documents, which were made exhibits, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.14,500/- per gunta, apart from granting other statutory benefits.

3. he operative portion of the order of the Reference Court is set out below:

“1. Reference in L.A.C. No. 12/95 to 20/95 are accepted in part.

2. Market value in respect of the acquired lands is determined at Rs.14,500/- per gunta.

3. The claimants are entitled to additional market value at 12% p.a. on the market value from the date of preliminary notification to the date of the award of the L. A. O. or the date of dispossession whichever is earlier.

4. The claimants are entitled to solatium at 30% on enhanced market value.

5. The claimants are entitled to the interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of dispossession for a period of one year and further interest at 15% p.a. on the enhanced compensation after expiry of above stated one year till the date of payment.

6. The original Judgment is kept in L.A.C. No. 12/95 and copies are ordered to be kept in L.A.C. No. 13/95 to 20/95.

(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court) Gadag Dated. 25.01.2000 (B. M. ANGADI) Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadag.”

4. In coming to the aforesaid findings, the Reference Court made it clear that the Land Acquisition Officer had not at all considered the non-agricultural potentiality of the acquired land, even though the land was within the municipal limits. The Reference Court also relied on a map which was prepared by PW-1 showing the civil amenities in the vicinity of the acquired land. The Reference Court also relied on sale deeds Ext. P-8 to P-17.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Reference Court dated 25.1.2000, the claimants filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal before the High Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court framed two questions:

i. Whether the finding of the Reference Court that the fixation of market value by LAO is inadequate, is correct?

ii. Whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.14,500/- per gunta is erroneous and requires interference?

6. After a lengthy discussion, the High Court held that the determination by the Reference Court on the basis of sale transactions (Ext. P-8 to P-17) is based on two premises. According to the High Court, the two premises were:

i. The auction sales (disclosed by Ex. P 8 to Ex. P 17) reflect the proper market value in the area.

ii. The sites sold under Ex. P 9 to P 17 are in close proximity to the acquired land; that is sites 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 covered by sale deeds (Ex. P 9 to Ex. P 14) are within a distance of 60 mtrs. and sites 1, 9, 12 and 13 covered by sale deeds (Ex. P 8, P 15, P 16 and P 17) are at a distance of about 500 mtrs. from the acquired land.

7. The High Court held both the premises to be incorrect and did not uphold the decision of the Reference Court. However, the High Court noted that the Board, the beneficiary of the acquisition, had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for leading of further evidence stating therein that some of the landowners had given consent to passing of an award at the rate of Rs.7