Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
L. NARAYANA SWAMY, P.B. BAJANTHRI, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - Appellant
Vs.
RUKMINI - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4394 of 2016, 5578 of 2017
Decided on : 11-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Unnikrishnan M, Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, M.R. Vijaykumar, G. Balaji Naidu, Vasanth V Fernandes, Y.R. Sadashivareddy, Unnikrishna M, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to enhanced compensation is contingent upon the nature of the acquired land and the applicability of relevant legal provisions, and that the calculation of compensation must be based on the status of the land at the time of acquisition.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Land Acquisition - Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - Sections 6, 7, 8 - The court discussed the validity of an award passed in an arbitration case related to the acquisition of land by the Union of India. The key legal provisions discussed include the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (amendment) Ordinance, 2014. The court analyzed the nature of the land, the calculation of compensation, and the applicability of various legal provisions in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India acquired lands in Bengaluru under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation, leading to arbitration and subsequent appeals. The core issue was whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation and whether the impugned award was arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants were not entitled to enhanced compensation as the arbitrator had not considered the basic issue of whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of compensation at an exorbitant rate with reference to the standard of calculation in terms of square feet. The court also noted that the claimants' land was agricultural, and their enhancement claim was based on the assumption that it was non-agricultural/commercial land, which was impermissible. The court also addressed the delay in the acquisition process and determined an interim compensation amount.
Issues: The key issues included the entitlement of the claimants to enhanced compensation, the nature of the acquired land, the calculation of compensation, and the delay in the acquisition process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimants were not entitled to enhanced compensation as their claim was based on the assumption that their agricultural land was non-agricultural/commercial, which was impermissible. The court also addressed the delay in the acquisition process and determined an interim compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals in part, set aside the impugned award, and directed the settlement of the claimants' dues in terms of the interim order dated 22.09.2016.
Bajanthri, J.
In these two appeals appellants have questioned the validity of award dated 29.02.2016 passed in the Arbitration Case No.120/2015(New) 179/2008 (old). Union of India and Another are appellants in MFA 4394/2016. Smt. Rukmini and three others are the appellants in MFA 5578/2017. Fifth respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer is the common respondent (For short Smt.Rukmini and three others are referred as claimants, Union of India and Anr. as appellants and 5th respondent as 'Spl. LAO').
2. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi had acquired and took possession of lands bearing Sy.No.21(part) measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and in Sy.No.22 (part) measuring 4 acres 0.8 guntas of Jarkabandekaval Village, Bengaluru North Taluk under the statutory provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short referred to as 'Act, 1952') in favour of the Air Force Station, Bengaluru through the Spl. LAO, Bengaluru vide notification No.MIL/LAQ/CRS/72-73 dated 02.03.1973 which was notified in the then Mysuru Gazette, dated 08.03.1973. Spl. LAO assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.16,000/- per acre and compensation in terms thereof was made in terms of the award notification dated 07.02.1981 and 07.12.1981 respectively.
3. In terms of Act, 1952 r/w the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claimants submitted application for enhancement of compensation in the year 2008. An arbitrator was appointed for the purpose of consideration of the claimants enhanced compensation. Even though claimants enhancement application was rejected in part on 26.08.2011, however, 30% solatium and 6% interest was granted. The appellants have settled the award passed by the arbitrator to the extent of 30% solatium and 6% interest. In the meanwhile, claimants questioned the validity of the award dated 26.08.2011, preferred an appeal before this Court and their MFA No.1310/2013 was disposed on 14.07.2015 while remanding the matter to the arbitrator to pass a fresh order.
4. After remand of the arbitration case No.179/2008, it was renumbered as 120/2015. On 29.02.2016, arbitrator proceeded to pass award in favour of the claimants to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre with solatium @ 30% on the enhanced market price and interest @ 6% for one year from the date of taking possession viz., with effect from 30.01.1941 and @ 15% thereafter till make payment to the claimants. Thus, the appellants as well as claimants presented these appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Union of India submitted that appellants have acquired 694 acres of land in and around subject 'land' and uniform compensation has been awarded. Subject 'land' is an agricultural land unless and until it is converted into non-agricultural land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1952. It was contended that lands were with defence since 1941 under Act, 1952 and it was acquired in the year 1973. During the intervening period, claimants have been paid compensation rent. The arbitrator had not applied his mind to the above extent. The arbitrator's decision is with reference to 'J' Form, Notification, Record of Tenancy and Crop Certificate read with Exs.P.32 to P.50, land of Military, HMT, Jalahalli etc. Merely mentioning 'J' Form and there are no agricultural crops in the subject 'land', the arbitrator proceeded to take a totally different view as if it was a non-agricultural land, unless and until there was conversion of land from agriculture to non-agricultural, arbitrator cannot draw inference to the extent that subject 'land' is a non-agriculture land. Arbitrator has taken one more view to the extent that claimants had portion of the land adjacent to the subject 'land' which was sold to one Mohammed Ghose who converted agriculture to non-agriculture and sold certain sites for higher rates, which was much later than the date of acquisition of subject land. Such, view of the arbitrator is highly arbitrary and illegal having regard to the
