Compensation for acquired land must reflect its market value, considering unique characteristics, rather than applying a uniform rate across different parcels.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S.DIXIT, J.

All these appeals seek to call in question multiple Judgments & Award(s) entered by the Reference Court under Section 18(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby compensation has been enhanced after determining the market value of the lands acquired, afresh. In one set of these appeals preferred by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) is the immediate beneficiary of acquisition, mediate beneficiary being the Allottee. Both they complained that the enhancement of compensation is exponential qua the SLAO Award and the same is unjustified. In other set of appeals preferred by the claimants, grievance is that the enhancement of compensation falls short of what is legally due to them.

II. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE:

a) The KIADB is a statutory entity established under Section 5 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. As the title of the Act indicates, it is formed for the purpose of establishing/developing industrial area. It earmarks the areas comprising ordinarily private lands for being declared as industrial areas by the State Government. The Act provides for acquisition of private lands for public purpose on payment of compensation to the persons interested in the lands. It is the State Government, which notifies acquisition process under the provisions of Section 28 of the 1966 Act. The proposal was to acquire in all, 4950.61 acres in four villages of Ballari District; the extents of lands and villages in which they are situate are furnished in a tabular form below:

b) All these lands have been acquired under the provisions of 1966 Act for setting up industries, is not in dispute. The Preliminary Notification was published on 06.05.2010; the Final Notification was published on 23.08.2010; Notice under Sections 9 & 10 was issued on 29.05.2012; possession also came to be taken in due course. None of the landowners objected to the acquisition process. It is the case of claimants that on 28.09.2010, the Price Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner of Ballari District; Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- were offered as compensation per acre depending upon the location, nature & potentiality of the lands.

c) The PAC had fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- for the lands in Kuditini Village, Rs.2,31,000/- for the lands in Kolagallu Village, Rs.1,86,000/- for the lands in Veniveerapura Village, and Rs.22,000/- for the lands in Yerangalige Village. This was per acre price. They did not agree to the same groaning that it was inadequate. Award came to be passed on 25.05.2013 accordingly. The claimants received the award amount under protest. Therefore, the Reference Cases arose under Section 18(1) of 1894 Act. The Allottee of the lands was impleaded as a respondent in the reference proceedings. The KIADB and the Allottee resisted the claim for enhancement of compensation.

d) In the trial of all the clubbed Reference Cases, as many as 33 witnesses were examined from the side of claimants and 184 documents came to be produced & marked as Exs.P.1 to P.184. These documents inter alia comprised of General Awards, sketch of lands, statutory notices, Government Circulars, statistics of sale prices from Sub-Registrar’s Office, Sale Deeds, Section 11 notices; Section 12(2) notices, Encumbrance Certificates, Powers of Attorney, RTCs, Spot Inspection Reports, Valuation Report, LAC judgments, KIADB sketches, etc. From the side of respondents, one Smt. Saroja B.B., Special Land Acquisition Officer, was examined as R.W.1 and, in her deposition, 9 documents came to be produced & marked as Exs.R.1 to R.9. These documents comprised of General Award, Sub-Registrar’s Report, chart of beneficiaries & details of lands al