Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Tippanna S/o Basappa Sanadi @ Salahalli – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 103033 of 2015
Decided On : 31-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G.N. Narasammanavar.
For the Respondent: Praveen Y. Devareddiyavar.
IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of just compensation for acquired land, considering factors such as potentiality of the land and market value escalation.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act - Section 18
Fact of the Case:
The claimants lost their land for the construction of a tank and challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. The acquisition of the land belonging to the claimants was not in dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The Court considered the potentiality of the land, highest sale examples, and the increase in the market value of the acquired land. It emphasized the assessment of just compensation, including factors such as potentiality of the land, highest sale examples, and cumulative increase of computation of interest and solatium.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of just compensation for the acquired land, considering factors such as potentiality of the land and market value escalation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles established in P. Ram Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Major General Kapil Mehra vs. Union of India, emphasizing the assessment of just compensation and the determination of market value based on existing geographical situation, existing use of the land, and available advantages.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and awarded the claimants Rs. 4,06,150/- per acre as compensation for the loss of lands.
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Claimants who lost the land for construction of a tank are appellants challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 18.02.2006 in LAC No. 288/2005.
2. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:
2.1. Respondents acquired land belonging to the appellants in Korakoppa village under LAQ SR No. 120/2002-03 vide preliminary notification dated 12.02.2004 for construction of a minor irrigation tank.
3. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimants preferred an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Reference Court.
4. Reference Court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre.
5. Being not satisfied by the same, claimants are in appeal.
6. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, counsel for the appellants contended that for similar purpose lands in Sattigeri village were acquired and compensation was awarded by the Reference Court in a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- in the year 1997 and present lands were acquired in the year 2004. Therefore, there must be addition of 10% per year.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that in such circumstances, addition of 2 to 4% per year would be the just compensation and sought for passing suitable orders.
8. In the case on hand, acquisition of the land belonging to claimants as under is not in dispute.
| S. No. | LAC Nos. | Sy. No. of Sattigeri and Korakoppa Village in Saundatti Tq. | Area of the lands acquired A---G---A |
| 1 | 282/2005 | 169/3 | 02-08-00 |
| 2 | 280/2005 | 127 | 03-20-00 |
| 3 | 281/2005 | 165 | 02-28-00 |
| 4 | 283/2005 | 170/1 | 02-05-00 |
| 5 | 284/2005 | 170/02 | 02-08-00 |
| 126/1B | 02-17-00 | ||
| 6 | 285/2005 | 172 | 02-35-00 |
| (5-31) | 01-09-00 (4.04) | ||
| 7 | 286/2005 | 174 | 02-25-00 |
| 8 | 287/2005 | 9/1 | 00-29-00 |
| 9 | 288/2005 | 10 | 01-04-00 |
| 14/1 | 04-10-00 | ||
| 10 | 289/2005 | 12 | 01-05-00 |
| 11 | 290/2005 | 14/3 | 03-00-00 |
| 12 | 1/2006 | 128 | 03-08-00 |
9. Reference Court, took into consideration the fact that the notification of the year 1997 for the similar purposes and awarded Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation per acre.
10. Unlike the purchase of land by a prospective purchaser, land acquisition is a forcible takeover of privately owned land by the government for a stated “public purpose”. The said public purpose may include government projects, public private partnership projects or may be totally private projects.
11. It is pertinent to note that Land Acquisition results in loss of land to its owner permanently. Therefore, land looser is to be compensated in terms of money judiciously by awarding just compensation.
12. Consequences of land acquisition is not only an economic issue but also a question of human rights. Therefore, Courts are expected to take into account every factor which would assist in assessment of the just compensation for acquired land.
13. Judicial pronouncements time and again have emphasised what is a just compensation. Assessment of just compensation includes the following:
(i) Due consideration to potentiality of the land in a question.
(ii) Highest sale exampler placed on record by land owner regarding value of land.
(iii) Cumulative increase of computation of interest and solatium.
(iv) Correct evaluation of value mentioned in the sale deed placed before the Court.
14. However, usually the Courts should depend on the sale sampler method and judicial presidents whenever such evidence is available on record. Other effective method which is applied in the absence of sale sample method is the capitalization method.
15. In regard to assessment of just compensation the Ho
