Sri.K. Kakubal Shetty S/O Late K ... vs Special Alnd Acqisition Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 2171 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

                         AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

                MFA No.103210/2014
                       C/W.
           MFA CROB. NO.100173/2015 (LAC)

IN MFA NO.103210/2014

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
DHARWAD, NOW REPRESENTED BY SLAO
KIADB, DAVANGERE DIVISION,
DAVANGERE
                                          ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.SHASHANK S HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND

SRI.K KAKUBAL SETTY S/O LATE K LAXMAN SETTY
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
C/O. SRI VENKATESHWARA SILK
PALACE, MAIN ROAD,
TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY
                                          ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE L.A. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.4/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMC HOSPET, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,27,300/- PER ACRE.

IN MFA.CROB. NO.100173/2015

BETWEEN

SRI.K. KAKUBAL SHETTY S/O LATE K LAXMAN SHETTY AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS C/O.SRI.VENKATESHWAR SILK PALACE MAIN ROAD, TQ: HOSPET DIST: BELLARY ...CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)

AND SPECIAL AND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD DHARWAD, REP BY SLAO KIADB, DAVANGERE DIVISION DAVANGERE ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SHASHANK S HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA CROSS-OBJECTION IN MFA NO.103210/2014 IS UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.4/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS HOSPETE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGEMENT

Lands bearing Sy. No.159/1 measuring 2.73 acres,

Sy. No.160/1 measuring 1.87 acres and Sy. No.160/3

measuring 3.60 acres of Sankalapur village, Taluk Hosapet

were the subject matter of acquisition in terms of the

notification dated 12.07.1984 under Section 28(1) of the

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act (for short, 'the

Act) The final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act

was issued on 07.05.1987. The award under Section 11 of

the Land Acquisition Act was passed on 25.07.1996. The

Special Land Acquisition Officer deemed it fit to determine

market value at Rs.16,800.00 per acre. In addition to this,

statutory benefits were conferred.

2. The land loser sought reference before the

Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hosapet and sought for

enhancement of compensation. On reference, the case is

numbered as LAC No.4/2002 and the Principal Senior Civil

Judge at Hosapet allowed the petition in part and

determined the market value at Rs.1,27,300.00 and

statutory benefits were also conferred.

3. The beneficiary-KIADB has questioned the

judgement and award of the Reference Court by filing the

present appeal in MFA No.103210/2014. Aggrieved by the

said judgement passed by the Reference Court, the land

loser has filed MFA Cross-objection No.100173/2015

seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Both these cases are clubbed and heard

together.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-KIADB, Sri.

Shashank S. Hegde and Mrs Preeti Shashank have raised

the following contentions:

(a) The lands in question when acquired in

1984 were situated in a rural area and the

Reference Court committed an error in

providing a 10% escalation to the market

value of the land acquired in 1978.

(b) The preliminary notification having been

published on 12.07.1984 the Reference Court

could not have taken the valuation of the land

in the year 1987 i.e., the year in which the

final notification was issued. It is urged that

the valuation as on preliminary notification i.e.,

as on 12.07.1984 should have been taken into

consideration.

6. In support of his contention, the learned

counsel for the appellant-KIADB would place reliance on

the judgement reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745 (General

Manager ONGC vs. Ramesh Bhai). Based on these

grounds, he submits that at the most 5% to 7.5%

escalation should have been given to the lands in question

acquired under the 1978 notification and based on this he

would urge to allow the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the cross-objector, Sri.

Laxman T. Mantagani with all vehemence would oppose

the appeal filed by KIADB and in support of his cross-

objection seeking enhancement of compensation, raised

the following contentions:

(a) The Reference Court committed an error by

taking the valuation of lands acquired under

1978 notification as the basis to determine the

market value of the lands in question in the

present appeal.

(b) According to him, the lands which were the

subject matter of acquisition in 1978 are at a

distance of 6 kms from Hosapet and the lands

belonging to the cross-objector are 3 kms

away from Hosapet and the lands not being in

the vicinity of the lands which were the subject

matter of 1978 acquisition, the Reference

Court could not have determined the

compensation based on the valuation of the

lands acquired under 1978 notification.

(c) The lands being just 3 kms away from

Hosapet town should be treated as urban land

and 15% escalation should have been taken to

determine the market value as against 10%

considered by the Reference Court.

(d) The commissioner appointed before the

Reference Court has submitted a report

indicating the developments in the vicinity of

the lands in question and the report would

indicate that the lands in question are now part

of Hosapet city and even in terms of the

notification issued by the Government, the

lands are falling within the municipal limit of

Hosapet since 1997.

(e) The lands being acquired for the

development of the industrial area should be

considered as the lands within the urban limit

and on that basis, higher compensation should

have been awarded.

8. This Court has considered the contentions

raised at the bar and perused the materials on record.

9. From the impugned judgement and award, it

can be noticed that the value of the land was determined

in terms of the judgement in LAC No.6/1997 on the file of

the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hosapet which

was decided to consider the market value of Sy. No.325 of

Hosapet village measuring 4.29 acres which was the

subject matter of Section 4(1) notification issued in 1978.

In the said judgement the market value of the land is

determined at Rs.67,000.00 per acre. This determination is

taken as the basis to determine the value of the land

acquired in terms of notification of the year 1984. The

Reference Court has relied upon this judgement as no

other documents were produced before the Reference

Court to establish the market value of the land in the year

1984.

10. The question that needs to be considered is,

whether taking the valuation of the land bearing Sy.

No.325 in Jambunathanahalli village is justified to

determine the market value of the land which is situated in

Sankalapur village?

11. If the lands acquired in 1984 notification and

the lands acquired in 1978 notification are in the close

vicinity then there will be no difficulty in accepting the

valuation of lands acquired in 1978 as the basis to

determine the market value.

12. Learned counsel for the land loser, Sri. Laxman

T. Mantagani would submit that the lands acquired under

1978 notification is at a distance of 6 kms from Hosapet

and lands which are acquired under 1984 notification are

at a distance of 3 kms from Hosapet and the order of the

Reference Court taking the valuation of the land acquired

in 1978 as the base price has caused great injustice to the

land loser.

13. The contention of the learned counsel for the

claimant Sri.Laxman T Mantagani for higher compensation

with 15% escalation is based on the report of the Court

Commissioner who inspected the place in and around the

lands acquired cannot be accepted for the simple reason

the Court Commissioner visited the area 20 years after the

lands are notified for acquisition. It is extremely difficult to

assess the development in and around the area of acquired

lands that were in existence when the lands were acquired

in 1984 based on the report of the Court Commissioner

who visited the spot during 2004.

14. From the records, it is not possible to ascertain

the contention relating to the distance between Hosapet

and the lands acquired under 1978 notification. However,

Ex.P.5 the sketch in respect of lands acquired in 1984

would disclose that the acquired lands are at a distance of

3 miles from Hosapet. It is also relevant to note that the

petition lands were acquired for industrial purpose. Since

the lands are at a distance of 3 miles from Hosapet and

since it is acquired for industrial purpose there is no

difficulty in holding that the land must be in semi-urban

area. Hosapet is a taluk and taluk headquarter will have at

least 2 kms radious. Under the circumstances, there is no

difficulty in holding that the lands in question fell in semi-

urban area or in the periphery of Hosapete town. Thus,

this Court is of the opinion that 10% escalation provided to

the lands acquired, taking base value of lands acquired in

Jambunathanahalli is not on higher side but on lower side.

However, there is no justification to provide 15%

escalation as urged by the land losers.

15. Since the lands in question are acquired for

industrial purpose and the lands are found to be in the

periphery of Hosapete town, this Court deems it

appropriate to provide escalation at the rate of 12.5% per

annum. Since the lands are acquired for industrial purpose

and lands are situated 3 miles away from Hosapete town

which is the taluka headquarter, it can be concluded that

the lands are semi-urban lands. The lands in question

cannot be treated as rural lands as contended by the

appellants.

16. It is also relevant to note that the Reference

Court committed an error in computing the market value

inasmuch as the date of notification is taken as 1987

instead of 1984. However, it is also required to be noticed

that the Reference Court has added 10% flat escalation on

a base price of Rs.67,000.00 per acre determined for the

lands acquired in 1978. In terms of the ratio laid down in

the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in General

Manager ONGC vs. Ramesh Bhai referred supra, the

escalation is to be provided on cumulative basis.

17. Thus, if 12.5% escalation is provided from

1978 to 1984 on cumulative basis the market value would

be Rs.1,35,824.00 per acre in 1984.

18. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the

opinion that Rs.1,35,824.00 per acre would be the market

value of the lands acquired in 1984. Hence, we pass the

following:

ORDER

MFA No.103210/2014 as well as MFA Cross-objection

No.100173/2015 are allowed in part.

The market value of the lands acquired are

determined at Rs.1,35,824.00 per acre as on 1984.

The proportionate cost of the cross-objection is on

the appellant in MFA No.103210/2014.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

sh