Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 803
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V.SRISHANANDA, J
SRI.TIPPANNA S/O. BASAPPA SANADI @ SALAHALLI – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL, SUB DIVISION BAILHONGAL – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103033 OF 2015 (LAC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR
For the Respondents: SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR
The court confirmed that compensation for acquired land should reflect its market value, factoring in prior compensation trends and an annual escalation of 7% due to the increasing value of rural land.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Section 54(1) - Compensation for land acquisition - Appellants sought enhancement of compensation for their land acquired for the construction of a minor irrigation tank, from Rs.1,80,000/- per acre to a greater amount, citing previous compensation rates for similar lands. The Reference Court enhanced compensation based on evidence, finding that due consideration was not given to the potentiality of the land and historical compensation trends. Based on principles established in judicial pronouncements, particularly concerning justified market value and escalation of land value, the court held that 7% annual increase should be applied relevant to prior compensation rates, resulting in an enhanced compensation amount. (Paras 30, 28, 26, 24, 18, 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellants' land was acquired under preliminary notification for constructing a tank, and they were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, feeling it inadequately reflected the land's value.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the claimants were entitled to Rs.4,06,150/- per acre, adjusting for escalation and additional solatium amounts.
Issues: The main issues included whether prior rates of compensation should inform current valuations and the appropriate rate of increase over time for rural land acquisitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the proper assessment of market value considers potential land use, development trends, and prior compensation rates, adjusting for escalation.
Result: Appeal allowed, and compensation awarded increased.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimants are challenging land acquisition judgement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. compensation claims are compared to similar past awards. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. land acquisition requires just compensation considerations. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. factors for assessing just compensation are outlined. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. market value determination methods and relevant principles. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. escalation of land value over time is addressed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25) |
| 7. final compensation amount is determined and calculated. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. final judgment and order regarding compensation. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT
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.
| Sl. 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 | 170/02 126/1B | 02-08-00 02-17-00 |
| 6 | 285/2005 | 172 (5-31) | 02-35-00 01-09-00 (4.04) |
| 7 | 286/2005 | 174 | 02-25-00 |
| 8 | 287/2005 | 9/1 | 00-29-00 |
| 9 | 288/2005 | 10 14/1 | 01-04-00 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
