Karnataka High Court
ADDL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - Appellant
Versus
K.T.ALVA - Respondent
Decided On : 06-18-75
M.F.A. : 102 of 1970
Land Acquisition - Market Value - Land Acquisition Act - S. 4(1), S. 11 - Wet-I land, Wet-III land, Dry land, Granite rock - S. 30|1a - S. 25|4a, S. 25|5a, S. 25'3a - The court confirmed the determination of market value for wet-I and wet-III lands made by the Civil Judge. The valuation of dry land based on awards C4 and C5 was not supported. The court held that the area covered by granite rock should be valued as one unit and not separately as land and granite rock. The court also considered the potentiality of the land for quarrying granite and the principles governing the valuation of wasting assets. The market value of the land containing granite rock was fixed at Rs. 90,000, and the market value of the remaining land was fixed at Rs. 4,000 per acre.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against the award and decree in a land acquisition case where lands in Mudushedde village of Mangalore Taluk were acquired for the construction of the Mangalore Port. The claimants sought reference to the Court feeling aggrieved by the award made by the LAO.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the determination of market value for wet-I and wet-III lands made by the Civil Judge. The valuation of dry land based on awards C4 and C5 was not supported. The court held that the area covered by granite rock should be valued as one unit and not separately as land and granite rock. The court also considered the potentiality of the land for quarrying granite and the principles governing the valuation of wasting assets. The market value of the land containing granite rock was fixed at Rs. 90,000, and the market value of the remaining land was fixed at Rs. 4,000 per acre.
Issues: Determination of market value for different categories of land, valuation of land containing granite rock, potentiality of the land for quarrying granite, principles governing the valuation of wasting assets.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of market value for wet-I and wet-III lands was confirmed. The valuation of dry land based on awards C4 and C5 was not supported. The area covered by granite rock should be valued as one unit and not separately as land and granite rock. The potentiality of the land for quarrying granite and the principles governing the valuation of wasting assets were considered.
Final Decision: The market value of the land containing granite rock was fixed at Rs. 90,000, and the market value of the remaining land was fixed at Rs. 4,000 per acre. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal.
( 1 ) THE appeal is by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Port, Mamgalore, against the award and decree dl. 30-1-1969 in O. P. 525 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Mangajore.
( 2 ) PURSUANT to the notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Gazette on 27-7-1963, lands situate in Mudushedde village of Mangalore Taluk were acquired. The lands acquired were: 2 acres 72 cents of wet-I land in S. No. 25|4a; 1 acre 70 cents of wet-I land in S. No. 25|5a; 36 cents of wet-III land in S. No. 25'3a and 7 acres 19 cents of dry land in S. No. 30|1a. It may be mentioned here that out of 7 acres and 19 cents of dry land, there is a quarry over an exent ot 4 acres and 29 cents, and the remaining extent of 2 acres and 90 cents is only a dry land.
( 3 ) THE claimants claimed compensation at Rs. 10,000 an acre for wet-I land, at Rs. 4,000 an acre for wet-III land and at Rs. 10,000 an acre for dry land in addition to the value of granite rock at Rs. 1-50 P. per lorry load. The LAO determined the market value of wet-I land at Rs. 5,000 an acre, that of wet-III land at Rs. 2,000 and that of dry land at Rs. 2,000 an acre. He did not award any compensation in respect of the granite rock as such. Feeling aggrieved by the award made by the LAO, the claimants sought reference to the Court.
( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge determined the market value of wet-I land at Rs. 7,500 an acre and that of the wet-III land at Rs. 3,000 an acre. So far as the dry land was concerned, he determined the market value of the entire extent of 7 acres and 19 cents at Rs. 8,000 an acre. In addition, he made an award of Rs. 94,000 in respect oi the granite rock comprised in the land. The enhancement made by the learned Civil Judge is challenged in this appeal.
( 5 ) SO far as the determination of the market value of wet-1 and wet-III lands is concerned, the learned Civil Judge has adopted the rental yield from these twc categories of lands as had been found by the LAO. Fifteen muras of rice and six muras of rice were the annual rental from these lands according to the LAO. The learned Civil Judge took the market value of rice at Rs. 25 per mura, in accordance with the rates published in the Govt notifications, and adopted the multiple of 20 to arrive at the market value. We do not see anything wrong in the basis adopted by the learned Civil judge in determining the market value of these two categories of lands, the LAO, though he found the rental values at 15 muras and 6 muras of rice, proceeded to determine the market value of the land on the basis that the market value of one acre of land whose rental value was 3 muras per annum, would be Rs. 1,000. As the learned Civil Judge has observed, there is no basis or evidence in support of such proposition. Therefore, the determination of the market value of wet-I and wet-III lands as made by the learned Civil Judge, does not call for interference in appeal and the award made, in this behalf, is confirmed.
( 6 ) THE learned Civil Judge fixed the market value of the dry land at rs. 3,000 an acre on the basis of two awards, certified copies of which had been produced before him and marked as Exts. C4 and C5. We have gone through those awards. No witness has spoken in regard to those awards or about the location of the lands concerned therein and their relative position in regard to the land acquired. The awards, Exts. C4 and C5, show that the lands dealt with therein were in a residential area and surrounded by factories and had a potentiality for building purposes and therefore they had been valued as such. There is absolutely no evidence in the instant case that the dry land acquired was similar to the lands concerned in exts. C4 and C5. Therefore, the basis adopted by the learned Civil Judge for determining the market value of the dry land, is not correct and cannot be supported.
( 7 ) THE learned Civil Judge has made an award in respect of the entire area of 7
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.