Point of Law: Court should look into sale instances of smaller pieces of land while applying reasonable element of deduction.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K., J.

These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed in LAC No.87/2013 dated 21.01.2015 passed by the by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge Hubballi (for short ’Reference Court’).

2. MFA No.102248/2015 is filed by the petitioner/appellant to modify the judgment and award passed in LAC No.87/2013 for enhancement of the award granted by the Reference Court and MFA No.103444/2016 is filed by the Government praying to set aside the judgment and award passed in LAC No.87/2013 by the Reference Court and thereby restore the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in award No.LAQ/CR/68/20122013 dated 14.03.2013. Both appeals are filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short’ the Act’).

3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are that the appellant in MFA No.102248/2015 was the owner of the land measuring 2 acres 12 guntas comprised in R.S.No.34/2 of Mariyan Thimmasagar village, Hubballi taluk. The respondent No.2 in the appeal i.e. the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka took out Gazette Notification dated 22.11.2012 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’), proposing to acquire the entire extent of the land in R.S.No.34/2 i.e to the total extent of 5 acres 15 guntas for the purpose of construction of Hubballi Court Complex. The appellant filed objections for the said Gazette Notification for acquisition of 2 acres 12 guntas of her land in R.S.No.34/2 contending that she has no other properties and if the Government provides alternative sites, she has no objection to acquire her land. However, the respondents-authorities without considering her objection issued final Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act by confirming the acquisition and published the said Notification in Karnataka Gazette on 14.02.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant filed W.P.No.77980/2013 before this Court challenging the said acquisition proceedings. However, subsequently, she withdraw the said writ petition.

4. Accordingly, the respondents-authorities issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and thereafter award was passed in respect of the acquired land measuring 5 acres 15 guntas and quantified the compensation at Rs.57,55,749/- in total. The appellant being the owner of the land to an extent of 2 acres 12 guntas got her share of Rs.25,50,197/- out of total award amount. Nevertheless, the appellant filed her objection with the second respondent and put forth her claim to receive the award, subject to her objections and received her part of the award amount. However, it is contended that the compensation awarded towards the acquisition of her land is very meager and as such she sent a reference application dated 21.09.2013 under Section 18(1) of the Act to the respondents-authorities as per Ex.P.11 requesting the respondents–Authorities to refer the matter to the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi for determination of correct market value and award compensation accordingly. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.3 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, Dharwad referred the matter to Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi under his letter dated 11.10.2013. Consequently, the said matter was referred and numbered as LAC No.87/2013 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi and the parties are notified. The respondents-authorities filed their objection to the reference application.

5. Before the Reference Court, in order to prove the claim of the appellant, the appellant examined her husband, power of attorney holder, as PW.1 and produced 22 documents as per Ex.P1 to P.22. On behalf of the respondents, the Assistant Engineer of PWD, Hubballi is examined as RW.1 and produced one document as Ex.R1. The Reference Court after appreciation of the evidence available on record and