Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Ashlayabai And Ors on 30 June, 2021
Author: S.G.Pandit And M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201010/2019 (LAC),
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201003/2019 (LAC),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201007/2019 (LAC),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201008/2019 (LAC),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201009/2019 (LAC) &
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201011/2019 (LAC)
MFA No.201010/2019:
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Senior Section Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway
Secunderabad.
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy & Sri Narendra M. Reddy,
Advocates)
And:
1. Ashlayabai W/o Jagannath Rao
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Sindagi-B village
2
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi-585102
2. Mohan S/o Jagannath Rao
Dead by LRs.
a. Yamuna W/o Mohan Jangay
Age: 67 years, Occ: Household
b. Mithun Jangay S/o Mohan Jangay
Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture &
Private service
c. Suman Jangay S/o Mohan Jangay
Age: 41 years, Occ: Agriculture &
Private service
All R/o H.No.17-01-380/IP/89
Indrapast Colony, Saidabad
Hyderabad, Telangana-500059
3. Ambadas S/o Jagannath Rao
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Sindagi-B Village
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi-585102
4. Denanath S/o Jagannath Rao
Dead by LRs
a. Shobha W/o Denanath Jange
Age: Major, Occ: Household
b. Harish S/o Late Denanath Jange
Age: 39 years, Occ: Private service
c. Dayasagar S/o Denanth Jange
Age: 37 years, Occ: Private service
All R/o Sindagi-B village
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi-585103
3
5. The State of Karnataka
Through the Asst. Commissioner
and LAO, Kalaburagi-585102
6. The Deputy Commissioner
Kalaburagi-585102
... Respondents
(Sri K.N. Phaneendra, Senior counsel for Sri Amaresh S. Roja
& Sri Satish R. Patil, Advs. for R2(a to c), R3 & R4 (a to c);
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R5 and R6)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to allow the appeal
by setting aside the judgment and award dated 06.12.2018
passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in LAC
No.365/2010.
MFA No.201003/2019:
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Senior Section Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway
Secunderabad.
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy & Sri Narendra M. Reddy,
Advocates)
And:
1. Pradeep S/o Gundappa
2. Praveen S/o Gundappa
Both u/g of Gouramma
W/o Gundappa, R/o Sindagi-B
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi-585103
3. The State of Karnataka
Through the Asst. Commissioner
and LAO, Kalaburagi-585102
4. The Deputy Commissioner
Kalaburagi-585102
... Respondents
(Sri K.N. Phaneendra, Senior Counsel for Sri Amaresh S.
Roja & Sri Satish R. Patil, Advs. for R1 & R2;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R3 and R4)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to allow the appeal
by setting aside the judgment and award dated 06.12.2018
passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in LAC
No.369/2010.
MFA No.201007/2019:
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Senior Section Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway
Secunderabad.
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy & Sri Narendra M. Reddy,
Advocates)
And:
1. Rukmayya S/o Zaranappa
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Sindagi-B village
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi-585102
2. The State of Karnataka
Through the Asst. Commissioner
and LAO, Kalaburagi-585102
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Kalaburagi-585102
... Respondents
(Sri K.N. Phaneendra, Senior Counsel for Sri Amaresh S.
Roja & Sri Satish R. Patil, Advs. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 and R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to allow the appeal
by setting aside the judgment and award dated 06.12.2018
passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in LAC
No.367/2010.
MFA No.201008/2019:
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Senior Section Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway
Secunderabad.
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy & Sri Narendra M. Reddy,
Advocates)
And:
1. Late Sharanappa S/o Revappa
Legal heirs
Devappa S/o Sharanappa
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Sindagi-B village
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi-585102
2. The State of Karnataka
Through the Asst. Commissioner
and LAO, Kalaburagi-585102
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Mini Vidhan Soudha
Gulbarga-585102
... Respondents
(Sri K.N. Phaneendra, Senior Counsel for Sri Amaresh S.
Roja & Sri Satish R. Patil, Advs. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 and R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to allow the appeal
by setting aside the judgment and award dated 06.12.2018
passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in LAC
No.366/2010.
MFA No.201009/2019:
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Senior Section Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway
Secunderabad.
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy & Sri Narendra M. Reddy,
Advocates)
And:
1. Goudappa S/o Bhimsha Itagundi
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Sindagi-B Village
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi-585102
2. The State of Karnataka
Through the Asst. Commissioner
and LAO, Kalaburagi-585102
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Kalaburagi-585102
... Respondents
(Sri K.N. Phaneendra, Senior Counsel for Sri Amaresh S.
Roja & Sri Satish R. Patil, Advs. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 and R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to allow the appeal
by setting aside the judgment and award dated 06.12.2018
passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in LAC
No.368/2010.
MFA No.201011/2019:
Between:
Union of India
Through Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, South Central Railways
Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Represented by Senior Section Engineer
Construction, S.C. Railway
Secunderabad.
... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy & Sri Narendra M. Reddy,
Advocates)
And:
1. Dharamaraya S/o Sharanappa
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Sindagi (B)
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi-585103
2. The State of Karnataka
Through the Asst. Commissioner
and LAO, Kalaburagi-585102
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Kalaburagi-585102
... Respondents
(Sri K.N. Phaneendra, Senior Counsel for Sri Amaresh S.
Roja & Sri Satish R. Patil, Advs. for R1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2 and R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to allow the appeal
by setting aside the judgment and award dated 06.12.2018
passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in LAC
No.363/2010.
These appeals having been heard and reserved on
24.06.2021, coming on for pronouncement of judgment this
day, S.G.Pandit, J., delivered the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT
Though the appeals are listed for orders, with the
consent of the learned counsels, the matter is taken up
for disposal. In all these appeals the lands in question
are acquired under the same notification, for the same
purpose, are of the same village and the contentions
raised are similar. Hence, they are clubbed and heard
together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The beneficiary - South Central Railways is
before this Court under Section 54(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act') assailing the
common judgment dated 06.12.2018 in LAC
No.365/2010 in MFA No.201010/2019, LAC
No.369/2010 in MFA No.201003/2019, LAC
No.367/2010 in MFA No.201007/2019, LAC
No.366/2010 in MFA No.201008/2019, LAC
No.368/2010 in MFA No.201009/2019, LAC
No.363/2010 in MFA No.201011/2019 on the file of II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi.
3. The lands bearing Sy.No.128/3 (128/6)
measuring 6 acres 28 guntas, Sy.No.127/7 (127/5)
measuring 0.24 guntas, Sy.No.129/1 (129/6)
measuring 18 guntas, Sy.No.125/4 (125/6) measuring
10 guntas, Sy.No.128/1 (128/4) measuring 18 guntas
and Sy.No.128/2 (128/5) measuring 25 guntas of
Sindagi village which are the subject matter in these
appeals were acquired by the notification dated
19.05.2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act for the
purpose of formation of new broad gauge railway line
from Gulbarga to Bidar. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed award fixing the price of the acquired
lands at the rate of Rs.20,500/- per acre for dry land.
The claimants-respondents not being satisfied with the
award, sought reference under Section 18 (1) of the Act
in LAC Nos.365/2010, 369/2010, 367/2010,
366/2010, 368/2010 and 363/2010 on the ground
that lands in question are having non-agriculture
potentiality, surrounding lands are converted to non-
agricultural purposes and the villages Shaik Roza and
Zafarabad are nearby wherein enormous development
has taken place. The appellants contended that the
lands in question are agricultural lands and no
development has taken place in and around Sindagi
village, which has no non-agricultural potentiality.
Before the Reference Court, the claimants examined
themselves and marked documents on their behalf,
whereas the appellant also examined RW-1 and
produced documents in support of their contention.
The Reference Court on the ground that the lands in
question are having non-agricultural potentiality, while
also having all urban characters and the lands being
very near to developed city of Gulbarga and relying on
the decision of this Court in MFA No.200360/2016
dated 25.01.2017 which related to Jafarabad and Shaik
Roza villages, enhanced the compensation and held that
claimants would be entitled for Rs.129.95/- per sq.ft.
for the acquired lands along with all statutory benefits.
Being aggrieved by the said enhancement of
compensation, the beneficiary - South Central Railways
is before this Court in these appeals.
4. Heard learned counsel Sri Manvendra Reddy
and Sri Narendra M. Reddy for appellant - Railways,
learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N. Phaneendra for
respondents-claimants and Smt. Archana P. Tiwari,
learned AGA for the respondents 5 and 6. Perused the
appeal papers as well as the Trial Court records.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the Reference Court committed manifest
error in following the judgment dated 25.01.2017 in
MFA No.200360/2016 which related to lands in Shaik
Roza and Jafarabad villages. The lands in question are
situated in Sindagi (B) village which is far away from
Shaik Roza and Jafarabad villages. The lands in
question are agricultural dry lands. The Reference Court
without looking into the evidence of respondent-
appellant, which had placed material to rebut the
evidence of claimants, proceeded to pass award solely
relying on the decision referred to above which was
related to Shaik Roza and Jafarabad villages. Further,
the learned counsel would submit that evidence and
material placed by the respondent-appellant is not
looked into by Reference Court while enhancing the
compensation under the impugned judgment. It is his
submission that the Reference Court ought to have
followed comparable sale instances placed on record by
the appellants. Learned counsel would refer to Ex.R-3
sale deed dated 27.08.2007 of Sy.No.117/2 of Sindagi
village wherein 4 acres of land is sold for Rs.1,71,000/-.
Ex.R6 sale deed dated 18.02.2011 of Sindagi village
wherein 1 acre 20 guntas is sold for Rs.90,000/- and
Ex.R-9 sale deed dated 22.02.2012, 18 guntas is sold
for Rs.22,000/-. Thus, he submits that when the sale
instances were produced, the Reference Court could not
have blindly followed the judgment in MFA
No.200360/2016 dated 25.01.2017. Learned counsel
would rely upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 136 in the case of Kanwar
Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India to contend that
generally there would be different situation and
potentiality of a land situated in two different villages
unless it is shown to be the same. Further, the learned
counsel would rely upon the decision in AIR 2014 SC
1957 in the case of Bhule Ram vs. Union of India and
another to contend that market value of the land is to
be determined taking into consideration the existing use
of a land's geographical situation/location along with
advantages/ disadvantages. Further the learned
counsel would submit that the Reference Court
committed an error in awarding interest at the rate of
12% per annum from the date of 4(1) notification till the
date of award or date of taking possession. It is his
contention that the claimants would be entitled for
interest from the date of taking possession or from the
date of award relying upon decision reported in (2019)
15 SCC 301 in the case of Raviprakash Sharma vs.
State of Uttar Pradesha & Ors. Thus, he prays for
allowing the appeals.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N. Phaneendra
appearing for respondents-claimants raised preliminary
objection with regard to maintainability of the appeals
since the award directs 50% each to be paid by
Government of Karnataka and Ministry of Railways and
that the State has not preferred any appeal. Further he
also submits that when the entire award is challenged
by the appellant-Railways, it ought to have paid the
Court fee on the entire amount and not on 50% which
they are liable to pay. Further, the learned Senior
Counsel would contend that lands in question are
having non-agricultural potentiality which come under
the Kalaburagi Planning Authority and it is very near to
Jafarabad and Shaik Roza villages, wherein enormous
development has taken place. Further, the learned
Senior Counsel would submit that within the vicinity of
Sindagi, development has taken place. Colleges,
schools and agricultural research institute has come up
within half a kilometer. According to him land is having
all urban characteristics. Several surrounding lands
have already been converted for non-agricultural
purposes. He justifies the judgment of the Reference
Court which has relied upon the judgment of this Court
in MFA No.200360/2016 dated 25.01.2017. It is his
submission that Jafarabad and Shaik Roza which were
the villages involved in the said appeal are close by and
adjacent to Sindagi village. It is his further submission
that the sale deeds placed on record by the appellant
are of subsequent years which cannot be relied upon to
fix the price. It is also submitted that for the
notification of the year 2007 for some other project, the
price fixed is Rs.149/- per sq.ft. and for 2010
notification Rs.194/- per sq.ft. Learned Senior Counsel
would rely upon Mahadev vs. Deputy Chief Engineer,
Constructions, South Central Railways, Civil Appeal
No.7642/2019 dated 26.09.2019 wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court for the lands in villages of Shaik Roza and
Jafarabad, fixed the price at Rs.129.95/- per sq.ft.
which the respondents in the present appeal are also
entitled to. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeals
by confirming the judgment of the Reference Court.
7. Learned AGA Smt. Archana P. Tiwari supports
the appellant - South Central Railways and submits
that the Reference Court ought to have followed
comparative sale instances instead of following the
judgment of this Court relating to different villages.
8. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties
and on going through the records, the only point which
requires consideration is as to whether the judgments
under appeals requires interference?
The answer to the above point is in the affirmative
for the following reasons.
9. After hearing the learned counsels and on
perusal of the records, we are of the considered opinion
that the methodology adopted by the Reference Court
for determining the compensation or market value of the
land is opposed to settled position of law and opposed to
the material on record.
10. Firstly, we shall consider the preliminary
objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel with
regard to the maintainability of the appeal and the court
fee to be made good by the appellant-Railways.
Appellant-Railways has filed memo of undertaking dated
24.06.2021 undertaking to make good the remaining
court fee in view of the challenge to the entire award.
As such, the point with regard to court fee no more
remains for consideration. With regard to filing of
appeal by the appellant-Railways only to the extent of
50% of the compensation awarded and State of
Karnataka having not filed appeal in respect of the
balance 50%, was one of the contentions in MFA
No.201775/2018 & connected matters. The Co-ordinate
Bench by its judgment dated 24.09.2020 has held that
the Central Railways has become the absolute owner of
the lands in question, notwithstanding contribution by
the State Government to the compensation amount and
the challenge is to the entire judgment and award and
not partial. Moreover, the learned AGA has fully
supported the challenge made by the appellant-
Railways. In that view of the matter, the preliminary
objection with regard to maintainability is rejected.
11. The determination of compensation in each
case depends upon nature of land and what is the
evidence in each case. Determination of price has to
depend on the evidence adduced in the case. What is
required to be assessed is the land and its existing
potentiality alone as on the date of acquisition. Onus to
prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is
upon the claimants. The claimants are expected to lead
cogent and proper evidence in support of their claim.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported
in (2010) 13 SCC 384 in the case of Radha Mudaliyar
vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Tamil Nadu
Housing Board has held that while determining the
compensation or price of the land, safest method to be
followed is comparable sale instances. The relevant
paragraphs 12 and 13 reads as follows:
"12. It is a well settled principle of law that
comparable sale instances, subject to their
satisfying the basic ingredients of law, are the
best piece of evidence to be considered by the
Court for the purpose of determining the
compensation. Even awards and transactions of
the adjacent areas have been treated as best
evidence which will fall within the zone of
consideration by the Court. Of course, such
instances must be comparable and legally
admissible in evidence. In this aspect, we may
refer to the judgments of this Court in the case of
Harcharan v. State of Haryana, [(1982) 3 SCC
408]; Kantaben Manibhai Amin vs. Land
Acquisition Officer, Baroda, [(1989) 4 SCC 662]
and ONGC Ltd. vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel,
[(2005) 6 SCC 454].
13. Comparable sales instances are the safest
method for determining the market value of the
acquired land and as laid down in Shaji
Kuriakose vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., [(2001)
7 SCC 650], it should satisfy the factors, inter
alia, (1) the sale must be genuine transaction; (2)
the sale deed must have been executed at the
time proximate to the date of issuance of
notification under Section 4 of the Act; (3) the land
covered by the sale must be in vicinity of the
acquired land; (4) the land covered by the sale
must be similar to the acquired land; and (5) size
of the plot of the land covered by the sale be
comparable to the acquired land. The sales
instances should preferably be closest to the date
of the notification as then alone it would satisfy
the touchstone of the principles contemplated
under Section 23 of the Act, as held in Kanwar
Singh vs. Union of India, [(1998) 8 SCC 136].
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in yet another case
reported in (2018) 13 SCC 96 in the case of Manoj
Kumar & others vs. State of Haryana & others has
held that the determination of compensation in each
case depends upon the nature of land and what is the
evidence adduced in each case. It has also observed
that the similarity of the land covered by previous
judgment/award is required to be proved like any other
comparative exemplar. The relevant paragraphs 12, 13,
14 and 16 reads as follows:
"12. We have come across several decisions
where the High Court is adopting the previous
decisions as binding. The determination of
compensation in each case depends upon the
nature of land and what is the evidence adduced
in each case, may be that better evidence has
been adduced in later case regarding the actual
value of property and subsequent sale deeds
after the award and before preliminary
notification under section 4 are also to be
considered, if filed. It is not proper to ignore the
evidence adduced in the case at hand. The
compensation cannot be determined by blindly
following the previous award/judgment. It has to
be considered only a piece of evidence not beyond
that. Court has to apply the judicial mind and is
supposed not to follow the previous awards
without due consideration of the facts and
circumstances and evidence adduced in the case
in question. The current value reflected by
comparable sale deeds is more reliable and
binding for determination of compensation in such
cases award/judgment relating to an acquisition
made before 5 to 10 years cannot form the safe
basis for determining compensation.
13. The awards and judgment in the cases of
others not being inter parties are not binding as
precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of
the courts to follow them blindly probably under
the misconception of the concept of equality and
fair treatment. The courts are being swayed
away and this approach in the absence of and
similar nature and situation of land is causing
more injustice and tantamount to giving equal
treatment in the case of unequal's. As per
situation of a village, nature of land its value
differ from the distance to distance even two to
three-kilometer distance may also make the
material difference in value. Land abutting
Highway may fetch higher value but not land
situated in interior villages.
14. The previous awards/judgments are the only
piece of evidence at par with comparative sale
transactions. The similarity of the land covered
by previous judgment/award is required to be
proved like any other comparative exemplar. In
case previous award/judgment is based on
exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable,
previous award/judgment of court cannot be said
to be binding. Such determination has to be out
rightly rejected. In case some mistake has been
done in awarding compensation, it cannot be
followed on the ground of parity an illegality
cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment
would be wholly irrelevant.
15.......
16. To base determination of compensation on a
previous award/ judgment, the evidence
considered in the previous judgment/ award and
its acceptability on judicial parameters has to be
necessarily gone into, otherwise, /gross injustice
may be caused to any of the parties. In case
some gross mistake or illegality has been
committed in previous award/judgment of not
making deduction etc. and/or sufficient evidence
had not been adduced and better evidence is
adduced in case at hand, previous
award/judgment being not inter-parties cannot
be followed and if land is not similar in nature in
all aspects it has to be out-rightly rejected as
done in the case of comparative exemplars. Sale
deeds are at par for evidentiary value with such
awards of the court as court bases its conclusions
on such transaction only, to ultimately determine
the value of the property."
14. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decisions, the
judgment under appeals is required to be examined.
15. The lands in question are acquired under
notification dated 19.05.2005 issued under Section 4(1)
of the Act. Admittedly, the lands of the respondents-
claimants are agricultural lands. As on the date of 4(1)
notification the lands of the claimants were not
converted for non-agricultural purposes. The Reference
Court without examining the documents placed on
record by both appellant and respondents in its proper
perspective, has come to the conclusion that even
though it is agricultural land it is having non-agricultural
potentiality; is having all urban character; several
surrounding lands are converted and several industries
and factories are established within the limits of
Jafarabad village. The Reference Court has lost site of
the fact that the lands in question are situated within
the vicinity of Sindagi (B) village, but the Reference
Court proceeded as if the lands are situated at
Jafarabad and Shaik Roza villages. Exs.P11 to P19 are
conversion orders relating to lands situated at Shaik
Roza and Jafarabad villages. Whereas, Exs.P-5 to P7
conversion orders even though related to Sindagi (B)
village are of the year 2010 except Ex.P5 dated
18.03.2002. It is true that as per notification dated
25.04.1989 Sindagi village is included within the local
planning area of Gulbarga City Local Planning Area.
But mere inclusion of the village in the local planning
area would not result or change the character of the
land. The potentiality of the land or otherwise for the
purpose of determination of market value is to be
proved by placing cogent evidence on record and initial
burden is on the claimants in that respect. The
claimants-owners of the lands, in their evidence have
admitted that their lands are agricultural lands. At a
distance of 1½ kilometers Agricultural Research Centre
is situated. But the claimants have failed to place on
record what development has taken place in and around
Sindagi village except stating that Sindagi village is
adjacent to Shaik Roza and Jafarabad villages. Non-
agricultural potentiality has to be measured only with
reference to the developments within the vicinity of the
lands in question and the Court cannot assume the
developments, but development within the vicinity is a
matter of proof. Moreover, the claimants in their
evidence have admitted that they have not placed on
record any sale transaction instances of the relevant
period to assess the land value. Merely because the
village in question i.e. Sindagi is adjacent to or nearby
Shaik Roza or Jafarabad villages, the claimants cannot
claim that they are also entitled for the same price. In
that regard it would be relevant to refer to the
observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanwar
Singh and others case (supra) to the effect that
generally there would be different situation and
potentiality of the land situated in two different villages
unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of
the land in two different villages are the same. In the
instant case, the claimants have failed to establish that
the lands in Sindagi village have the same potentiality,
value and advantages of the lands in Shaik Roza or
Jafarabad villages. Every village adjoins another village.
Unless and until the claimants prove that their lands
are also having the same potentiality and advantages of
the adjacent village lands, they would not be entitled for
the price fixed for the lands of the adjoining villages.
Ex.R2 is placed on record to show the sub-registrar land
value between the years 2004 and 2007 and the value
was Rs.38,500/- per acre for irrigated land in Sindagi
(B) village. The learned counsel for the appellant-
Railways has made available during the course of
hearing the sub-registrar land value as on this day for
the lands situated in Sindagi village which is at
Rs.4,98,000/- per acre for irrigated land. All these
materials are not taken into consideration by the
learned Reference Judge while determining the land
value.
16. As stated above, it is settled principle of law
that comparable sale instances, subject to they
satisfying the basic ingredients of law, are the best piece
of evidence to be considered by the court for the
purpose of determining the compensation. In the case
on hand, both the appellant and respondents have not
placed on record sale instances of the relevant year i.e.
2005. But the appellant-Railways have placed on record
Exs.R3 to R9 sale deeds which ranges from August
2007 to February 2012. Ex.R3 sale deed dated
27.08.2007 in respect of Sy.No.117/2 of Sindagi village
discloses sale price of Rs.1,71,000/- for 4 acres which
would be around Rs.42,750/- per acre. Ex.R-9 is sale
deed dated 22.02.2012 in respect of Sy.No.139/6 of
Sindagi village wherein price shown is Rs.22,000/- for
18 guntas of land. When the land price between 2007
to 2012 would depict price of around Rs.45,000/- to
Rs.50,000/- per acre, the Reference Court without
looking into those documents which relate to Sindagi
village, which are the subject matter of acquisition,
could not have come to the conclusion that claimants
are entitled for Rs.129.95/- per sq.ft. which would be
Rs.56,60,622/- per acre solely based on the decision of
this Court in MFA No.200360/2016 dated 25.01.2017
which related to Shaik Roza and Jafarabad villages.
Thus, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court
committed a manifest error in following the decision of
this Court which related to different villages without
examining the material on record to determine the price
of the acquired lands for the purpose of awarding
compensation.
17. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N. Phaneendra,
as stated above, relied upon the judgment in
Mahadeva's case (supra). Mahadeva's case was
rendered in relation to the lands acquired in Jafarabad
and Shaik Roza villages and it is not with regard to land
acquired in Sindagi village. Therefore, the said decision
would not assist the respondents-claimants.
18. The Reference Court has failed to determine
the market value for the purpose of compensation based
on the material placed before it, either by following the
method of sale instances or capitalization method. How
the market value is to be determined and guidelines in
that regard is reiterated in a recent decision reported in
(2018) 8 SCC 485 in the case of Union of India vs.
Dyagala Devamma & others. The Reference Court
has failed to follow the parameters laid down in the
above decision and also failed to determine
compensation in accordance with Section 23 of the Act.
Hence, we are of the view that the judgments under
appeals requires to be set aside remitting the matter to
the Reference Court for fresh determination strictly in
accordance with law, by following the principles and
guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
above referred decisions. Since the matter is being
remitted to the Reference Court, we have not gone into
the question raised with regard to award of interest.
The Reference Court while passing final judgment and
award shall consider awarding interest in accordance
with law and strictly following the provisions of the Act.
The parties are at liberty to adduce fresh evidence.
19. For the reasons stated above, MFA
Nos.201010/2019, 201003/2019, 201007/2019,
201008/2019, 201009/2019 & 201011/2019 are
allowed. The common judgment and awards dated
06.12.2018 in LAC No.365/2010, LAC No.369/2010,
LAC No.367/2010, LAC No.366/2010, LAC
No.368/2010 and LAC No.363/2010 are set aside and
are remitted back to the Reference Court for fresh
consideration as stated above, within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As
the appeals are remanded for fresh consideration, the
appellants are entitled for refund of the court fee in
accordance with law.
The records in the concerned LACs shall be
re-transmitted forthwith to the Reference Court. The
parties shall appear before the Reference Court on
28.07.2021 without expecting any fresh notice.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
swk
