Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 July, 2024
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
-1-
MFA No.103527/2015
C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103527 OF 2015 (LAC)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100083 OF 2023
IN MFA NO.103527 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
[
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GLBC DIV. NO.1, GHATAPRABHA,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HIDKAL DAM PROJECT, HIDKAL DAM
TQ:HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI HALAPPA SIDDAPPA WANTMURE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT 2A. SRI SULTAN HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
NARAYANKAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O:RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
KARNATAKA
2B. SRI KENCHAPPA HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O:RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2C. SRI BHIMAPPA HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O:RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SIR MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (A TO C)
-2-
MFA No.103527/2015
C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 09.04.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.157/2014, ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
RAIBAG, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT RS.12,58,400/- PER
ACRE AND ETC.,
IN MFA CROB NO.100083 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI HALAPPA SIDDAPPA WANTAMURE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
1. SRI SULTAN HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRL.,
R/O:RAIBAG-591317, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. SRI KENCHAPPA HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRL.,
R/O:RAIBAG-591317, DIST:BELAGAVI.
3. SRI BHIMAPPA HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRL.,
R/O:RAIBAG-591317, DIST:BELAGAVI.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GLBC DIVISION. NO.1, GHATAPRABHA,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE-591306.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HIDKAL DAM PROJECT, TQ:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.103725/2015 FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., PRAYING TO, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RAIBAG IN LAC NO. 157/2014 DATED
09.04.205 ENHANCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AT
RS.16,00,000/- PER ACRE FROM RS.12,58,400/- PER ACRE WITH ALL
STATUTORY BENEFITS AND COSTS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CROSS
OBJECTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
-3-
MFA No.103527/2015
C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND CROSS
OBJECTION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 01.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, BASAVARAJA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE BASAVARAJA) Both appeal and cross-objection arise out of the judgment and award dated 09.04.2015 passed in LAC No.157/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Raibag (for short, 'Reference Court').
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The beneficiary of the land acquisition the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (for short, 'KNNL') has preferred MFA.No.103527/2015 for modification of the award passed by the Reference Court by reducing the award amount and the cross-objectors-claimants have preferred MFA.CROB.No.100083/2023 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded.
4. The brief facts leading up to filing of this appeal and cross-objections are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short "Special Land Acquisition Officer") has acquired the -4- MFA No.103527/2015 C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023 land bearing Sy.No.581B/B measuring 2 acre 15 guntas of Raibag village for construction of Raibag Upper Stage Canal KM.13 under Ghataprabha Project vide preliminary Notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was notified in gazette on 22.10.2009. The SLAO has passed award vide No.LAQ/JSR/44/2009-10 dated 31.03.2012 and awarded compensation of Rs.70,911/- per acre with statutory benefits and same was paid. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the SLAO, claimants filed Reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to refer the case to Reference Court for determination of actual market value of the property. Accordingly, the case was referred to Reference Court and was registered as LAC No.157 of 2014. To substantiate the case of the claimants, one witness-Sultan Halappa Wantamure was examined as PW1 and sixteen documents were produced as Exhibits P1 to P16. On closure of claimants side, respondents have not adduced any evidence on their part, but marked two documents as Exhibits R1 and R2. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Reference Court passed the judgment and award determining the value of the land at Rs.12,58,400/- per acre against Rs.70,911/- per acre determined by the SLAO with statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by this judgment and award passed by the Reference -5- MFA No.103527/2015 C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023 Court, the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited has preferred this appeal seeking modification of the award by reducing the amount to Rs.4,50,000/- per acre as against Rs.12,58,400/- awarded by the Reference Court. Claimants have preferred cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj C.Bellakki for the appellant-KNNL; learned counsel Sri.Madanmohan M.Khannur, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1-SLAO; and learned counsel Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani appearing for the cross objectors-claimants and perused the appeal papers along with original records.
6. The learned counsel Sri. Shivaraj C.Bellakki appearing on behalf of the KNNL would submit that the enhancement of market value at Rs.12,58,400/- per acre by the Reference Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive. He further submits that the Reference Court has not assessed the evidence on record in the proper perspective for arriving at a just compensation and has committed serious error in holding that the petitioners' land had NA potentiality, even though the land is purely agricultural land surrounded by agricultural lands and situated at a considerable long distance from the developed lands. He further submits that in fact the -6- MFA No.103527/2015 C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023 claimants in their reference application have specifically pleaded that the land in question was a sugarcane growing agricultural land. He would submit that the Reference court has erred in assuming that Sy. No. 469/1 was a nearby land to petitioners' land which is already developed and NA plots were laid and being sold. Learned counsel would further submit that the Reference Court has erred in placing reliance on the sale deeds of small plots produced by the claimants pertaining to fully developed plots situated at a well-developed locality and they were incomparable with the land in question which is totally undeveloped and is purely an agricultural land. He further submits that Reference Court has erred in placing reliance on the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 6/2009 and connected matters dated 26.02.2011 though the said judgment and awards are in appeal and the same are pending consideration before this Court in MFA No. 24857/2011 and connected cases. He submits that, looking from any angle, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is opposed to law and probabilities of the case. Thus, he seeks to allow the appeal.
7. Sri. Laxman T.Mantagani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the cross-objectors-claimants would submit that the judgment and award passed by the Reference -7- MFA No.103527/2015 C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023 Court granting meager amount of compensation is contrary to the material evidence placed on record, hence the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced. He further submits that, the nature of land under acquisition is a fertile land with an irrigation facility and growing commercial crops. The mode of irrigation is that of pipeline from Krishna River, Bore-well, Open well and Canal and is cultivable land. It is also submitted that, the neighboring lands bearing Survey Nos. 469/1A/3, 587/A/1B and 587/A/1D have been converted into NA land, plots have been formed and several plots have been sold, hence, the land under acquisition has got NA potentiality. It is submitted that around the land in question there are play grounds, Anandibai High School, five factories, New High School, KEB, residential layouts and there is a main road which leads to Sugar factory, Degree College, Maharaja Palace, etc. Further, there are various offices, garages and other commercial establishments. He submits that the Reference Court failed to appreciate and consider that the land under acquisition comes within the jurisdiction of Pattana Panchayat, Raibag. It is submitted that the Pattana Panchayat, Raibag has issued a certificate that the above neighboring lands come within the jurisdiction of Raibag Pattan Panchayat. He submits that though it is clear from the materials available in record -8- MFA No.103527/2015 C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023 that the land under acquisition has got NA potentiality, however the Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs. 12,58,400/- per acre which is on lower side. It is submitted that, the lands acquired for the very same purpose from same village through preliminary Notification dated 08.01.2004 covered in LAC No. 6/2009 and connected matters, the Reference Court therein was pleased to fix the market value at Rs.10,06,000/- per acre by judgment and award dated 26.02.2011, whereas in the instant case the preliminary Notification published on 22.10.2009 and the Reference Court awarded the compensation at Rs.12,58,400/- per acre and submits that the claimants are entitled for escalation value of 10% per annum for Six years, however the claimants restrict their claim for Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. Therefore, he submits that the judgment and award fixing the market value by the Reference Court at Rs.12,58,400/- per acre is on lower side and the same is required to be enhanced suitably. On all these grounds, he sought for allowing the cross-objection.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal and cross-objection papers along with original records, the following points would arise for consideration:
-9-MFA No.103527/2015 C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
(i) Whether the appellant-Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited has made out ground to reduce the amount from Rs.12,58,400/- per acre to Rs.4,50,000/- per acre?
(ii) Whether the cross-objectors-claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?
(iii) What order?
9. Our answer to the above points are as under:
Points (i) & (ii): in the negative Point No.(iii) - As per final order for the following reasons:
Regarding Points (i) and (ii):
10. Before re-appreciation of evidence on record, it is appropriate to mention here as to the relevant legal principles enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of cases. The same are as under:
"(1) It is well settled that in determining the compensation the court would take into consideration the potentialities of the land existing as on the date of the notification published under Section 4(1) (State of Orissa v. Brij Lal Misra, (1995) 5 SCC 203) (2) This Court in Sardara Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar, (2020) 14 SCC 483, has held that the rates of compensation awarded in adjacent villages cannot be disregarded if in the given
- 10 -MFA No.103527/2015 C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
set of facts and evidence, similarity is established. Similarly, in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2016) 13 SCC 190, the Court held that compensation awarded in the adjoining village can be considered when there was similarity in potentiality. [See also Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC 708]. In view of this settled position of law, we see no ground to interfere with this finding.
(3) When there is a choice between an exemplar where the transaction is between unrelated parties dealing at arm's length and between an exemplar where the transaction is between related parties of a higher value, both of which are broadly around the same period, prudence would dictate and common sense would command that we accept the value of set out in the transaction between unrelated parties. We are inclined to accept the transaction which is at arm's length and accept the market value of the amount of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. and reject the claim of Rs. 175/- per sq. ft. (4) It is well settled that market value is determined based on the price of a willing buyer-a willing seller at arm's length. In Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi (1988) 2 SCC 150, it was held:
"8. The determination of market value of a piece of land with potentialities for urban use is an intricate exercise which calls for collection and collation of diverse economic criteria. The market value of a piece of property, for purposes of Section 23 of the Act, is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arm's length. The determination of market value, as one author put it, is the prediction of an economic event viz. the price outcome of a hypothetical sale, expressed in terms of probabilities. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bonafide transactions of sale at or about
- 11 -MFA No.103527/2015 C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
the time of the preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the best, evidences of market value. Other methods of valuation are resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar lands is not available."
(5) In Himmat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 16 SCC 392, this Court, dealing with the issue of deduction of development charges in the context of acquisition for a railway line held as under:
"33. The approach adopted by the Reference Court and the High Court in making deductions towards the cost of development/development charges from the market value determined on the basis of the sale deeds produced by the appellants was clearly wrong. The respondents had not even suggested that the development envisaged by the Reference Court i.e. laying of roads, drains, sewer lines, parks, electricity lines, etc. or any other development work was required to be undertaken for laying the railway line. Therefore, 25% deduction made by the Reference Court and approved by the High Court under two different heads is legally unsustainable."
(6) Insofar as the Development charge is concerned, as held in Himmat Singh, where no Development is envisaged like laying of roads, drains, sewer lines, parks etc. and what is required is only construction of a flood control wall, the question of deducting any development charge cannot arise. [See also Nelson Fernandes v. Land Acquisition Officer (2007) 9 SCC 447]."
11. We have carefully examined the material placed before the Court. It is not in dispute that land was acquired under 4(1) Notification dated 22.10.2009 for the purpose of construction of Raibag Upper Stage Canal KM. No.13 under Ghataprabha Project. It is also not in dispute that the SLAO has
- 12 -
MFA No.103527/2015C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023 passed an award vide No.LAQ/JSR/44/2009-10 and awarded the compensation of Rs.70,911/- per acre.
12. The claimants have filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and same was referred to the Reference Court for determination of actual market value of the property. Respondent No.2-KNNL filed objections to the said application contending that the award passed by the SLAO is just and proper sought for dismissal of the reference petition. To substantiate the case of the claimants, one witness Sultan Halappa Wantamure examined as PW1, has deposed in his evidence that the land in question is having NA potentiality and the said land is situated within the limits of Raibag Pattana Panchayat. He states that Raibag is a developing town and the worth of this land is Rs.50,000/- per gunta. Further, he has deposed that Sy.Nos.469/1A/3 situated in Vidya Nagar, Raibag Pattana Panchayat and Biraj Plot in survey Nos. 587/A/1B and 587/A/1D are within the limits of Gram Panchayat. Further, he has deposed as to the sale deeds dated 22.08.2008, 06.11.2008 and 17.11.2001 of lands sold, are adjacent to the land in question. On all these grounds, sought for compensation.
- 13 -
MFA No.103527/2015C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
13. The claimants have also produced the documents in support of their case. Ex.P1, the record of rights pertaining to the land bearing Sy.Nos.581B/B of Raibag village for the year 2009-10. Ex.P2 is the map of Raibag, Exs.P3 to P6 are the certified copies of the sale deeds relating to plots in Sy.Nos.469/1A/3, 587/A/1B and 587/A/1D which are executed on 22.08.2008, 06.11.2008 and 17.11.2001 respectively. Ex.P3 discloses that two plots measuring 40 ft X 30 ft each were sold for Rs.52,500/- and in toto Rs.1,05,000/-, Ex.P4 discloses that two plots measuring 40 ft X 25 ft each were sold for the consideration of Rs.56,000/- each, Ex.P6 discloses that plots measuring 40 ft X 25 ft each have been sold for consideration of Rs.28,000/-, Ex.P7 is the document issued by the Sub- Registrar, Raibag which discloses that in Vidya Nagar area the price of land for commercial purpose is Rs.47.31/- per feet and for residential purpose Rs.43.28/- per feet, Ex.P15 is the certificied copy of the judgment passed in LAC No.11/2001 and other clubbed cases on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, sitting at Raibag dated 30.07.2007.
14. A careful examination of oral and documentary evidence placed by the claimants reveal that in the surrounding areas of the land in question, there are schools, colleges, playgrounds and various offices, residential houses, Vidya
- 14 -
MFA No.103527/2015C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023 Nagar, Vivek Nagar, etc., apart from this, land relating to Sy.No.469/1 have been converted into NA land, plots have been made, sold and several constructions have already come up. Similarly, in the vicinity of the lands acquired, there are offices, commercial shops, etc. As could be seen from the oral evidence of PW1, the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants were relating to nearby lands which were executed respectively in the year 2001 and 2008 and particularly prior to issuance of 4(1) Notification. In addition to this, the Town Panchayat, Raibag has issued a certificate at Ex.P8, which goes to show that the land in Sy.No.469/1A/3 is within the limits of Town panchayat. Exhibit P9 goes to show that the lands bearing Sy.Nos. 587/A/1B and 587/A/1D are within the limits of Grama Panchayat of Raibag.
15. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, respondents have not disputed the documents produced by the claimants. Respondents have also not adduced any rebuttal evidence to discard the evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence. Considering all these material and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred in the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court, the Reference Court has determined an actual market value of the property at the rate of Rs.18,87,600/- per acre and deducted 1/3rd towards
- 15 -
MFA No.103527/2015C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023 roads, drainage, amenities, development charges amounting to Rs.6,29,200/- and awarded the compensation of Rs.12,58,400/- per acre.
16. In the instant case, the land in question i.e. land bearing Sy.No. Sy.Nos.581B/B measuring 2 acres 15 guntas, wet land situated in Raibag village within the limits of Grama Panchayat, Raibag. The Development Officer, Grama Panchayat, Raibag has also issued a certificate to the effect that Sy.Nos.587/A/1B and 587/A/1D are NA lands situated within the limits of Grama Panchayat, Raibag, which is not disputed by the other side.
17. Ex.P2-Map pertaining to the Raibag Pattana Panchayat reveals that the land in question is situated within the jurisdiction of Raibag Pattana Panchayat adjacent to NA potentiality lands bearing Sy.Nos.587/A/1B and 587/A/1D which is also not disputed by other side.
18. Ex.P8, the certificate issued by the Chief Officer, Pattana Panchayat, Raibag also reveals that Sy.No.469/1A/3 is situated within the jurisdiction of Pattana Panchayat, Raibag. Considering all these aspects, the Reference Court has rightly held that the land in question is having NA potentiality.
- 16 -
MFA No.103527/2015C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
19. It is settled principle of law that the actual market value of the property has to be determined as on the date of publication of 4(1) Notification. In the case on hand, the date of publication of 4(1) Notification is 22.10.2009. Exs.P3 to P6 are the sale deeds and price list issued by Sub-Registrar Office, Raibag. Admittedly, Ex.P3 is relevant as it is of the year 2008. Ex.P3, sale deed reveals that two plots were sold for Rs.1,05,000/- and each plot is Rs.52,500/- (i.e.Rs.47,190/- per gunta). The Reference Court has rightly observed that there are no material to show that this sale transaction is not genuine sale transaction. Moreover, this sale deed is registered much prior to 4(1) Notification. Accordingly, the Reference Court has determined the market value at the rate of Rs.47,190/- per gunta which come to Rs.18,87,600/- per acre (i.e. Rs.47,190 X 40 guntas).
20. On the basis of the material placed before the Reference Court, the Reference Court has observed that the land acquired is having NA potentiality and is located in a fairly developed area and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, so also, the judgment of this Court. The Reference Court has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the value, towards road, drainage, amenities, development charges, etc., and awarded Rs.12,58,400/- per acre.
- 17 -
MFA No.103527/2015C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
21. On re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-examination of the entire evidence on record and keeping in mind of the aforesaid relevant legal principles, we do not find any error/legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant-KNNL would submit that the Reference Court has erred in placing reliance on the judgment and award passed in LAC No.6/2009 and connected cases dated 26.02.2011. The said judgment and award was challenged in appeal before this Court in MFA.No.24857/2011 and connected cases, the said appeals and connected cases are dismissed by this Court on 9.09.2022. Hence, there is no force in the arguments submitted on behalf of the counsel for the appellant-KNNL.
23. Learned counsel for the cross-objectors-Claimants would submit that the lands acquired by KNNL in the same village covered in LAC No.6/2009 was acquired through preliminary Notification dated 08.01.2004 and the Reference Court had fixed the market value of Rs.10,06,000/- per acre by judgment and award dated 26.02.2011, whereas in the instant case the Preliminary Notification published on 22.10.2009 and the Reference Court awarded the compensation at
- 18 -
MFA No.103527/2015C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023 Rs.12,58,400/- per acre by judgment and award dated 09.04.2015, hence the cross-objectors are entitled for escalation value of 10% per annum for six years, however, the cross objectors restrict their claim for Rs.16,00,000/- per acre.
24. A perusal of Ex.P10, certified copy of judgment and award passed in LAC No.6/2009 clubbed with other cases reveals that the land bearing Sy.No.639/1 and other lands situated in Raibag Village acquired by the KNNL for the purpose of construction of connecting canal to the D Block Distributory within Raibag Taluk acquired under 4(1) Notification dated 08.01.2004. The SLAO has awarded the compensation of Rs.84,808/- per acre, and thereafter the Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.10,06,000/- per acre as against Rs.84,808/-per acre. The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.6/2009 and other clubbed cases is confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.24857/2011 and connected cases dated 09.09.2022. That there is a long gap between the acquisition of the land pertaining to LAC No.6/2009 and other connected cases and the land in question acquired by the KNNL. As per Preliminary Notification dated 22.10.2009, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation considering that the land in question is having NA potentiality and based on the sale deed
- 19 -
MFA No.103527/2015C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023 adjacent to this land. The Reference Court has rightly determined the actual value of the property. Since there are sufficient material to determine the actual market value of the property as on the date of the 4(1) Notification dated 22.10.2009, it is not appropriate to consider the award passed in LAC No.6/2009 and connected cases which is confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in MFA Nos.24857/2011 and connected cases which pertains to the year 2004. Hence, the arguments advanced on behalf of the claimants cannot be accepted. Hence, we answer points No.1 and 2 in the negative. Regarding Point No.2:
25. For the aforestated reasons, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Both, appeal and cross-objection are dismissed.
No costs;
(ii) Registry is directed to transmit the trial Court records, along with the copy of this judgment, to the concerned court forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RH