Compensation for land acquisition should be based on specific sale documents, with a reliance on fair market value; liability for payment must be clearly attributed to the local government in the context of infrastructure development.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

MFA No.101764/2015 is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ’the Act’) by the legal representatives of claimant-appellants challenging the Judgment and Award passed in LAC 128/2011 dated 23.02.2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, praying for modification of the same and enhancing the market value at Rs.140/- per square foot along with statutory benefits and costs.

2. Cross objection No.100156/2022 is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC by the Executive Engineer of KUWSDB to modify the said award and to hold that respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the respondent Nos.1 and respondent No.3 in original LAC No.128/2011 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the land-losers and for such other reliefs.

3. MFA No.101809/2015 is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimant- Basavaraj, challenging the Judgment and Award in LAC No. 129/2011 dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti and to modify the market value at Rs.140/- per square foot along with statutory benefits and with costs by allowing the appeal.

4. Cross-objection No.100029/2023 is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC by the Executive Engineer of KUWSDB to modify the said award dated 23.02.2015 and to hold that respondent No.1 and 2 who are original respondent Nos.1 and 3 in LAC No.129/2011 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to land losers.

5. The Learned Senior Civil Judge has passed common judgment in LAC No.129/2011 c/w LAC No.128/2011 and LAC No.132/2011 on 23.02.2015 holding that all the three claim petitions were allowed in part with costs and claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation on the market value at the rate of Rs.5,60,000/- per acre along with all statutory benefits available under the provisions of the Act and held that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award amount.

6. The petitioner in Cross-objection is respondent No.2 in original LAC case contended that second respondent Board is not responsible for making payment because it is the statutory Corporation and expert body under Government of Karnataka to build infrastructure for drinking water supply and drainage facility wherever either the local bodies or the Government wishes to provide drinking water facility or drainage facility. The Board after building infrastructure hand over the project to the respective local bodies or the Government and its function is akin to the contractor who builds the building and hand over the same to the owner. Hence, prayed for modification of the award by absolving him from the liability.

7. In this regard, IA under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is filed by advocate for respondent No.2.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for the parties.

9. Learned counsel for appellants in MFA Nos.101764/2015 and MFA No.101809/2015 Sri.Pranav Umesh Badagi for Sri.K.H.Bhagi submitted that this is the appeal challenging the award granting enhanced compensation at Rs.5,60,000/- per acre by learned trial judge, which is meager. He contended that the learned trial judge has already recorded a clear finding that the acquired lands are having NA potentiality and thus it ought to have awarded the compensation at square foot basis but awarded the compensation on acre basis and not considered the Ex.P.6 and P.4 and thus the Reference Court committed an error in not accepting the valuation shown in Ex.P.4 to P.6 and thus prayed for allowing the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri. Dayanand M.