Shivappa S/O Muttappa Pujari vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3047 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

                        BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.201029/2015 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

SHIVAPPA S/O MUTTAPPA PUJARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O JAMBAGI
TQ & DIST. BIJAPUR.
                                          ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI NARENDRA M.REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI AJAYKUMAR A. K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BIJAPUR
                                         ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA)

       THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 29.11.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BIJAPUR IN LAC NO. 68/2004 AND
ENHANCE COMPENSATION AMOUNT.
                                        MFA No.201029/2015
                            2



     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
PHYSICAL/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS DAY THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

The present appellant is stated to be the

owner of agricultural land bearing R.S.No.207/2B

measuring 2 acres 5 guntas situated at Jambagi

village, taluk and district, Bijapur. The said land was

acquired by the respondent vide notification issued

under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred for brevity as the 'LA Act') which

was published on 27.07.2000. The purpose of the

acquisition was for construction of Minor Irrigation

Tank and an award came to be passed in LAQ:SR

No.6/1997-98 dated 13.12.2001 and respondent

awarded a total compensation of a sum of

Rs.1,01,220/- computed at the rate of Rs.33,000/-

per acre.

MFA No.201029/2015

2. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by

the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant, who

is present appellant, preferred a Reference

Application. Accordingly, the matter was referred to

the Court of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Bijapur (hereinafter referred for brevity as 'the trial

Court') which tried the matter under LAC No.68/2004.

After contest, the trial Court by its impugned

judgment dated 29.11.2011 partly allowed the

Reference Application filed by the claimant under

Section 18(2) of the LA Act and held that the claimant

was entitled for an enhanced compensation of a sum

of Rs.1,96,350/- per acre. In addition to that, the

statutory benefits of solatium, additional market value

and interest were also granted. Still being not satisfied

with the said judgment, the claimant has preferred the

present appeal.

MFA No.201029/2015

3. The respondent is being represented by

learned Additional Government Advocate.

4. Heard the arguments from both sides on

admission. Perused the material placed on record

including the memorandum of appeal and impugned

judgment.

5. It is the contention of the appellant that

the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the

acquired land of the claimant was a potential land and

that its deduction at the rate of 65% towards

developmental charges was arbitrary and

discretionary. Only the said point was canvassed by

the learned counsel for the appellant in his argument.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for respondent submitted that the

respondent/State ought to have preferred an appeal

against the impugned judgment. However, for the MFA No.201029/2015

reasons best known to them, the State has not

preferred any appeal. With this he submitted that the

trial Court has awarded compensation more than what

the appellant/claimant was deserving.

7. A perusal of the impugned judgment would

show that after appreciating the material evidence of

the claimant who was examined himself as PW.1 and

referring to the documents produced by him which

were marked as Exs.P1 to P8, the trial Court in its

reasoned order has held that the acquired land of the

appellant/claimant was established to be a dry land,

there was no material to believe that it was an

irrigated land or has got any access to the source of

water to raise any crop like sugarcane. It is also

noticed that admittedly Exs.P2 and P3 show that the

land was not irrigated and the crops that were grown

were Ground nut and Toor dal. With all this

observation regarding the nature of the land and the MFA No.201029/2015

crop that was being grown in the land, the trial Court

without any reasoning observed that there are no

sufficient materials to determine the market value of

the land on capitalisation method. Stating so, it gave

more emphasis on the copy of sale deed which was

marked as Ex.P8 showing that only one gunta of land

was said to have been sold after 2 years 10 months

from the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the

LA Act, as the basis for fixing the market value of the

land. In the said process at one point in its order, the

trial Court has held that alleged sale of only a small

piece of land which is 1 gunta of land has taken place

on 19.05.2003, whereas the acquisition Notification

under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was dated

27.07.2000. As such, there was a gap of nearly 2

years 10 months between these two dates. It has also

noticed the fact that the alleged sale deed under

Ex.P8 is a post acquisition development, in spite of the MFA No.201029/2015

same, it discarded the capitalisation method for

assessing the market value but embraced the sales

statistics method. In the said process, the trial Court

has noticed the location of the land under sale deed at

Ex.P8 and the acquired land and observed that both

pertain to the same village. Considering the sale

consideration mentioned in Ex.P8 and stating that

development charges at 65% has to be deducted and

after deducting the same, it proceeded to give further

deduction at the rate of 5% per annum for the reason

that the said sale deed was nearly 3 years subsequent

to the date of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of

the LA Act. After these deductions it arrived at a

market value at the rate of Rs.1,96,350/-. It is the

said percentage of deduction towards the

developmental cost, the learned counsel for the

appellant contends that the same is on the higher

side.

MFA No.201029/2015

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma and Others

reported in (2018) 8 SCC 485 referring to its

previous judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs.

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and

Another reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 has

observed that the said deduction towards the

development cost can be varied from 10% to 86%,

however, depending upon the circumstances of each

case. Therefore, it is not that 65% deduction made by

the trial Court was on the higher end. However, before

coming to the said conclusion of 65%, the trial Court

has given the reason as to the nature of the land, its

location so also with respect to the location of the land

under Ex.P8. It is only after considering the

circumstances of the case and the facts of the case as

laid down before it, the trial Court has arrived at a

conclusion that the percentage of deduction towards MFA No.201029/2015

cost of development has to be 65%. Since the

appellant could not place any material to hold that the

said calculation and conclusion made by the trial Court

was arbitrary, discretionary and without any reasons,

I do not find any ground deserving admission of this

appeal.

9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

order:

ORDER

i. The appeal stands dismissed at the stage of

admission as devoid of grounds for

admission.

ii. Registry to send the copy of this judgment

to the concerned trial Court immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR