Back
2010 Supreme(Raj) 472
[Citation : RLW 2010(2) RJ 916 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda (Kumar, J.)
HON'BLE R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
HON'BLE SWATANTER KUMAR, J.
Special Land Acquisition Officer
Versus
Karigowda & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3838-45, 48-63 of 2010, decided on 26.04.2010
Basva Prabhu Patil, Brijesh Kalappa, Divya Nair, N. Ganpathy, Anitha Shenoy and Rashmi Nandakumar, for Appellant;
Shanth Kr. V. Mahale, Harish S.R. Hebbar, Rajesh Mahale, M. Puttegowda and Somachari, for Respondents
Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sec. 23 and 24 — Fair and Market value — For determining the market value, the relevant consideration would be the value of land with its peculiar advantages and disadvantages with reference to commercial value — Held — Computation of compensation has to be in terms of Sec. 23 and 24 — Only statutory benefits in terms of Sec. 23 (1-A) and 23(2) would be available to the claimant.
¼d½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 23 vkSj 24 & mfpr ,oa cktkj ewY; & cktkj ewY; vo/kkfjr djus gsrq] lqlaxr fopkj gksxk O;kolkf;d ewY; ds lanHkZ esa Hkwfe ds fo'ks"k Qk;nsa ,oa uqdlku ds lkFk Hkwfe dk ewY; & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & izfrdj dh x.kuk /kkjk 23 ,oa 24 ds fucU/kuksa esa gh gksuh pkfg, & /kkjk 23¼1-d½ vkSj 23¼2½ ds fucU/kuksa esa nkokdrkZ dks dsoy dkuwuh ifjykHk gh miyC/k gksaxsA
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sec. 4 and 48 — Land taken in possession prior to issuance of notification u/Sec. 4 — Grant of interest for the period prior to the notification — Held — Interest for the period prior to the notification u/Sec. 4 is not permissible — For such period court can direct the Collector to examine the extent of rent or damage.
¼[k½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 4 o 48 & /kkjk 4 ds rgr vf/klwpuk tkjh djus ls iwoZ Hkwfe dCts esa yh xbZ & vf/klwpuk ls iwoZ dh vof/k gsrq C;kt iznku djuk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & /kkjk 4 ds rgr vf/klwpuk ls iwoZ dh vof/k gsrq C;kt vuqKs; ugha & ,slh vof/k ds fy, U;k;ky; dysDVj dks fdjk;s ;k {kfr dh lhek dk ijh{k.k djus ds funsZ'k ns ldrk gSA
vihy va'kr% Lohdkj dhA
2. All the above appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India raise a common question of law based on somewhat similar facts and are directed against different judgments of the Karnataka High Court and the judgment of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as the “Reference Court”).
3. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20767 of 2008 and 21730 of 2008 are directed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short the ‘SLAO’) and the Managing Director Irrigation Board (for short the ‘Board’) respectively, against the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2008 passed by the High Court in MFA No. 8544 of 2007, whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation of the acquired land to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for the wet land (garden land).
4. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31096-31109 of 2009 are directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 22nd February, 2008 in MFA Nos. 6924 of 2007 (LAC) C/W Nos. 6925/2007, 7289/2007, 7290/2007, 7291/2007, 7292/2007, 7294/2007, 8541/2007, 8543/2007, 8545/2007, 8546/2007, 8549/2007, 8551/2007 and 8553/2007 (LAC), whereby the High Court while relying upon its judgment in the earlier cases granted the compensation at a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for wet land (garden land) and Rs.2,53,750/- per acre for dry land.
5. Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.31169 of 2008 is directed against the judgment of the Reference Court dated 16th March, 2007 in LAC No. 219/2006, vide which the learned Court granted compensation at Rs.2,92,500/- per acre in respect of wet lands (garden land).
6. In other words, we will be dealing with the above appeals as well as other connected appeals, relating to the same acquisition, preferred by the State against the judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Reference Court. At the very outset, we may also notice that objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the appeal against the judgment passed by the Reference Court.
7. Simple but an interesting question of law that falls for consideration of the Court in the present appeals, relates to the ambit and scope of Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') – whether, manufac-turing or commercial activity carried on by the agriculturist, either himself or through third party, as a continuation of the agricultural activity, that is, using the yield for production of some other final product can be the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land, within the parameters specified u/Sec. 23 of the Act, in the facts of the present case?
8. The learned counsel appearing for the parties, have addressed varied arguments in support of their respective cases while primarily focusing their submissions on the above-referred question of law.
9. It will be appropriate to refer to the facts giving rise to the present appeals at the very outset. As the facts in all other connected appeals are more or less similar, thus, it will not be necessary for us to refer to the facts of each case in detail. For the purposes of brevity and in order to avoid repetition, we will be referring to the facts in the civil appeals arising from SLP(C) Nos. 20767/2008 and 21730/2008.
10. The respondents in these appeals are the owners of the lands varying between 2 to 48 guntas (total acquired land measured 146 acres and 7 guntas relating to nearly 419 claimants) situated in Village Sanaba, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura. These lands got submerged under the backwaters of Tonnur tank in the year 1993 due to construction of Hemavathi Dam. The water from the dam which was canalized to the tank resulted in submerging of the land belonging to different respondents. The physical possession of the land, belonging to the owners was taken on or about 24.10.1996 and 26.12.1999 respectively. However, the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act came to be issued on 4th April, 2002. The crops belongin
