Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
S. Sujatha, Shivashankar Amarannavar, JJ.
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited - Appellant
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer Hipparagi Project, Athani - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 103229 of 2015, 101446 of 2016
Decided On : 29-06-2020
Ramesh N Misale, Advocate, Archana A Magadum, Advocate, V.S. Kalasurmath, Advocate, Ramesh N Misale, Advocate
The main legal point established is the determination of market value based on NA potentiality, consideration of market value in related matters, and reliance on principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Market Value - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) - M.F.A.No.103229/2015 - M.F.A.No.101446/2016 - M.F.A.Crob.100178/2016 - M.F.A.No.23838/2012 - M.F.A.No.101376/2015 - M.F.A.No.25705/2012 - M.F.A.No.31097/2010 - M.F.A.No.31152/2010 - M.F.A.No.25105/2011 - M.F.A.No.20268/2012 - L.A.C.No.835/2011 - L.A.C.No.807/2011 - L.A.C.No.398/2014 - L.A.C.No.53/2012 - KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD VS. K.S.GANGADHARAPPA AND ANOTHER, (2009) 11 SCC 164 - PANNA LAL GHOSH AND OTHERS VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS, (2004) AIR SC 1179 - THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER VS. SRI SIDDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND OTHERS, (1995) AIR SC 840 - CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, POONA, (1988) AIR SC 1652 - LAL CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA, (2010) AIR SC 170 - ASHRAFI VS. STATE OF HARYANA, (2013) AIR SC 3654 - RANVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA, (2005) 12 SCC 59
Fact of the Case:
The beneficiary and land loser challenged the market value of the acquired land fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre by the Reference Court under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The beneficiary sought reduction while the land loser sought enhancement of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Reference Court considered the NA potentiality of the acquired land and relied on judgments and awards of similar lands in the vicinity. It also considered the market value determined in related matters and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Court held that the compensation should be fixed at Rs.4,05,900/- per acre with all statutory benefits.
Issues: The issues involved the correctness of the market value fixed by the Reference Court, the NA potentiality of the acquired land, and the applicability of judgments and awards of similar lands.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the NA potentiality of the acquired land, considered the market value in related matters, and upheld the compensation determined by the Reference Court. It also emphasized the principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales and the factors to be considered in determining compensation.
Final Decision: M.F.A.No.103229/2015 was allowed in part, modifying the compensation to Rs.4,05,900/- per acre, while M.F.A.No.101446/2016 was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S Sujatha, J. - The beneficiary as well as land loser are before this Court challenging the correctness and validity of the order dated 18.04.2015 passed in LAC No.835/2011 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Athani, (for short 'the reference Court) whereby the market value of the acquired land has been fixed at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits.
2. The land bearing Sy.Nos.824/3 in Athani, Athani taluk, Belgaum district, measuring 1 acre 15 guntas was acquired vide Notification dated 09.08.2007 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act'). The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the general award, awarding compensation of Rs.1,28,868/- per acre for the lands acquired. Being dissatisfied, the land loser sought for reference under Section 18 (1) of the Act. The Reference Court determined the market value of the subject land at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the beneficiary is seeking for the reduction of the market value of the land acquired whereas the land loser is seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary submitted that the award passed by the Reference Court is contrary to the well settled principles of law and the evidence on record. The Reference Court failed to consider the compensation awarded by this Court relating to the similarly situated lands of the same village acquired for the same project. The reliance placed by the Reference Court on the judgment and award passed in L.A.C.No.807/2011 connected with L.A.C.No.398/2014 dated 17.03.2015 is not proper since the same has not attained finality being challenged by the beneficiary/KNNL on many grounds. The claimants had claimed that in the agricultural lands acquired, sugar cane was grown. Even if it is to be assumed that the subject land has NA potentiality in future, it ought to have deducted 75% of the market value fetched for non-agricultural residential plots. The certificate issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture is inadmissible in law for not examining the said Officer, and has no evidentiary value. The fixation of market value should have been based on the evidence on record and not the inapplicable judgments and awards of different villages.
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
i) M.F.A.No.23838/2012 disposed of on 17.09.2019,
ii) M.F.A.No.101376/2015 connected with M.F.A.No.101377/2015 disposed of on 01.08.2018,
iii) M.F.A.Crob.100178/2016 in M.F.A.No. 23853/2013 disposed of on 21.02.2018,
iv) M.F.A.No.25705/2012 disposed of on 11.10.2019.
v) KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD VS. K.S.GANGADHARAPPA AND ANOTHER, (2009) 11 SCC 164 ,
vi) PANNA LAL GHOSH AND OTHERS VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS, (2004) AIR SC 1179 ,
vii) THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER VS. SRI SIDDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND OTHERS, (1995) AIR SC 840 ,
5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the acquired land is situated adjoining the Athani town wherein Mini Vidhana Soudha, Petrol Bunk, Commercial buildings, biscuit factories, etc., are located. The nature of the adjoining converted NA lands would indicate the NA potentiality of the subject land. The Sub-Registrar's guidance value ought to have been taken as the guiding factor for determination of the market value of the acquired land. Neither any cross-examination was made by the beneficiary nor NA potentiality of the land acquired was objected by the beneficiary. It was submitted that 33% of deduction towards development charges for the agricultural land having nonagricultural potentiality would be reasonable. The evidence placed on record by the claimants was not properly appreciated by the Reference Court in determining the just and reasonable compensation for the land acquired. However, learned counsel fairly submitted that in the reference application, no specific assertio
