The Registrar vs Malhrigouda S/O Shankargouda ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2729 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                  DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                        PRESENT

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

                          AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

             M.F.A. No.103279/2014 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
SCIENCES, KRISHINAGAR, DHARWAD.
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    MALHARIGOUDA S/O SHANKARGOUDA PATIL
      AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
      R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI
      DIST: BELGAUM-591313.
      SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,

1A.   SMT. SUMITRADEVI W/O. MALHARIGOUDA PATIL
      AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE

1B.   SMT. SUNITA W/O. SANJAY PATIL
      AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE

1C.   KUNAL RAJIVGOUDA W/O. SANJAY PATIL
      AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE.

1D.   SMT. SHALINI W/O. JAGADEESH ANGADI
      AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE.
                            2




1E.   SMT. SHARMILA W/O. RAJENDRA PATIL
      AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE.

1F.   SMT. PADMAJA W/O. LINGARAJ PATIL
      AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE.

1G.   SMT. TEJASWINI W/O. RAVI BOVIGAR
      AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE.

1H.   SMT. NANDINI W/O. SATISH PATIL
      AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE.

2.    SHANKAR S/O. DUNDAPPA SANSUDDI
      AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
      R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ. HUKKERI
      DIST. BELGAUM-591313.

3.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
      SUB DIVISION BELGAUM. BELGAUM-590001.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.V.VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATE)


      THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION

ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

DATED 13.06.2014 IN L.A.C.NO.7/2010 BY LEARNED SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, HUKKERI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.


      THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR   ORDERS,    COMING   ON   FOR   'PRONOUNCEMENT   OF

ORDERS', THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., MADE

THE FOLLOWING:
                                   3



                            JUDGMENT

The beneficiary of acquisition of land namely the

University of Agriculture and Sciences, Dharwad, is

questioning the compensation awarded in respect of Sy.

No.399 measuring 9 acres 21 guntas situated in

Sankeshwar village, Tq: Hukkeri.

2. Section 4(1) notification to acquire the above-

said land and some other adjoining lands, which are not

the subject matter of this appeal, was published on

06.10.1972. The Special Land Acquisition Officer

(hereinafter referred to as 'SLAO' for short) passed the

award on 07.05.2009. In between this period, there were

several other litigations, which delayed the passing of the

award. The detailed references to those proceedings are

not necessary for the adjudication of this appeal.

3. The reference sought by the land loser was

adjudicated in LAC No.7/2010, on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Hukkeri, which in terms of impugned judgment and

award dated 13.06.2014, allowed the reference petition in

part and enhanced the compensation payable to the land

acquired by fixing the market value at Rs.4,00,000/- per

acre, excluding the Kharab, if any. The award conferred

statutory benefits as well. Since, the said land was said to

be in possession of a tenant, as on the date of 4(1)

notification, 70% of the compensation is ordered to be

payable to the landlord and 30% to the tenant. The

beneficiary named above seeks to take exception to the

compensation awarded by the reference Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.K.L.Patil

elaborating his submissions on the grounds urged in the

appeal memo, would place reliance on the judgment

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA

No.7747/2004 (LAC), which was decided on 20.04.2009.

In the said judgment, this Court has fixed the valuation of

Rs.6.33 per Sq.ft. in respect of lands adjoining to the

national highway and Rs.4.50 per Sq.ft in respect of lands

not adjoining to the national highway. It is noticed from

the said judgment that the lands bearing

Sy.Nos.398/1D+2A measuring 6 acres 6 guntas and

398/1A measuring 12 guntas, were the subject matter of

the said appeal. These lands are adjoining to Sy. No.399

which is the land in question in this appeal. Placing reliance

on the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant

would urge that the compensation awarded by the

reference Court has to be reduced to Rs.4.50 per Sq.ft or

at any rate Rs.6.33 per Sq.ft.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

would submit that the land belonging to the land loser is

adjacent to national highway No.4. Based on this it is

urged that there is no scope for reducing the compensation

payable to the land loser. It is also urged that the

compensation payable is Rs.9 per Sq.ft and not Rs.6.33

per Sq.ft. Learned counsel referred to the compensation

awarded in the year 1986 at Rs.9 per Sq.ft in respect of

similar land and accordingly prays for enhancement of

compensation.

7. We have gone through the records and

particularly Ex.P.21, the notice and Ex.P2, the map. From

these documents, it is clear that the national highway is

adjoining to the land acquired. However, the contention of

the respondent that the market value of Rs.9 per Sq.ft is

to be awarded cannot be accepted for the simple reason

that the market value of Rs.9 per Sq.ft was fixed in respect

of land acquired in the year 1986. However, the land in

question was acquired in terms of notification of the year

1972. Thus, the market value determined in respect of

acquisition made in the year 1986 cannot be treated as the

market value of the land in the year 1972.

8. The alternative contention that the market

value of the land acquired is to be considered at the rate of

Rs.6.33 per Sq.ft treating entire lands like the one

adjacent to the national highway also does not merit

consideration. The reason is not far to seek. Though the

national highway runs adjacent to the land acquired, from

the sketch it is noticed that the length of the land running

adjacent to the national highway is not long enough to

treat the entire land of 9 acres as adjacent to the national

highway. The shape and size of the land forthcoming from

the map would indicate that a large portion of land is away

from the national highway though the land forms a single

unit.

9. It is also required to be noticed that the land

adjacent to the national highway fetches higher market

value considering commercial potential. If the commercial

potential of the land is to be taken into consideration, then

the land has to undergo the process of conversion. In such

an event the courts would deduct the value of land to

some extent. The extent of the deduction varies from 20%

to 75% depending on the nature of the commercial activity

to be undertaken. However, there is no fixed formula to

carry out such exercise.

10. Under these circumstances, this Court deems

it appropriate to treat 5 acres of land as adjacent to the

national highway and the remaining 4 acres 21 guntas as

not adjacent to the national highway.

11. For the reasons stated above this court is of

the opinion that it would be appropriate to award Rs.4.50

per Sq.ft as just and fair compensation in respect of 4

acres 21 guntas of land. The remaining 5 acres of land is

to be treated as the land adjacent to the national highway

and accordingly, Rs.6.33 per Sq.ft would be the just and

fair compensation for the land. This determination is based

on the determination of value made in terms of the

judgment dated 02.04.2009 in MFA No.7749/2004

delivered by the coordinate bench of this Court in respect

of lands acquired under the same notification and the lands

adjacent to the land which is the subject matter of this

appeal.

12. During the hearing learned counsel for the

appellant brought to the notice of the Court that in the

year 2003 the National Highway Authority of India has

acquired 1 acre 16 guntas of land in the same survey

number which was the subject matter of acquisition in the

year 1972. This Court directed the counsel for the

respondent-land loser to produce the copy of the award

passed in terms of acquisition made in the year 2003. The

respondent-land loser has produced a copy of the award.

In terms of the said award, Rs.11,07,967.00 is deposited

as compensation. Out of the said compensation, 70% of

the amount i.e., Rs.7,75,577.00 is paid to the landowner

Mallarigouda.S.Patil and 30% of the amount i.e.,

Rs.3,11,008.00 is paid to Shankar Dundappa Sansuddi the

tenant. However, it is not forthcoming from the records

placed before the Court whether the amount of

Rs.11,07,967.00 is inclusive of all statutory benefits and

interest.

13. Since, the land was acquired in the year 1972

in favour of the present appellant, the compensation

awarded along with all statutory benefit should have been

paid to the present appellant. However, the landowner and

the tenant who are contesting respondents, in this case,

have received compensation from National Highway

Authority in the ratio of 70:30 as referred above. Under

these circumstances, the compensation payable to be

contesting respondents should be reduced to the extent of

compensation awarded in terms of the award in proceeding

No.LAQ/NHAI/CALA/15/2003-2004.

14. It is also brought to the notice of the Court

that on account of the stay order passed by the Court

pursuant to challenge to the land acquisition proceeding,

the further proceedings were stayed. The contesting

respondents are not entitled to interest on the

compensation awarded for the period during which the

land acquisition proceedings were stayed.

15. Hence, the following;

ORDER

The M.F.A.No.103279/2014 is allowed in part.

Judgement and award dated 13.06.2014 passed in

L.A.C.No.7/2010 by the reference Court are modified

awarding compensation of Rs.6.33 per Sq.ft in respect of 5

acres of land and Rs.4.50 per Sq.ft in respect of 4 acres 21

guntas in Sy. No.390 of Sankeshwar village, Tq: Hukkeri,

Dist: Belagavi with all consequential statutory benefits

except the interest for the period during which the land

acquisition proceedings were stayed.

Out of the compensation payable, respondent Nos.1A

to 1H are entitled to 70% of the compensation amount.

Respondent No.2 is entitled to 30% of the compensation

amount.

Out of the compensation amount payable to the

respondent Nos.1A to 1H and respondent No.2, the

compensation amount awarded by the National Highway

Authority of India in terms of the award in proceeding No

No.LAQ/NHAI/CALA/15/2003-2004 shall be reduced as the

contesting respondents have received the compensation

amount from the National Highway Authority of India.

Pending applications, if any, do not survive for

consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE AM