Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquistion ... vs Mahesh Ghatge S/O Narayan Ghatge on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Krishna S. Byksdj, Psyj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
R.P.NO.100060/2022
C/W.
R.P.NO.100059/2022
IN R.P.NO.100060/2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU
2. THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CHANUKYPURI, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
ALL ARE AUTHORIZED AND REP. BY
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICE,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI I.C.PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
2
AND:
1. MAHESH GHATGE S/O NARAYAN GHATGE
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. UDUPI ONI, SHUKAR PETH
DHARWAD-580008
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU
...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI M.M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE, FOR R.1;
SHRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, FOR R.2.)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 15.06.2021 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN MFA NO.100622/2018 C/W MFA CROB
NO.100021/2019 BY ALLOWING THE REVIEW PETITION IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.,.
IN R.P.NO.100059/2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU
2. THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CHANUKYPURI, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
ALL ARE AUTHORIZED AND REP. BY
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
3
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICE, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI I C PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED IQBAL S/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANIKILLA, DHARWAD-580001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU
...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI S.M.KALWAD AND SHRI JAYAVANT KAMBALI,
ADVOCATES, FOR R.1;
SHRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, FOR R.2.)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT /
ORDER DATED 15.06.2021, PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
MFA NO.100621/2018 C/W MFA CROB NO.100116/2018, BY
ALLOWING THE REVIEW PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY, ETC.,.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These review petitions are structured on the
arguable apparent lacuna in the judgment wherein for
fixing the market value of the agricultural land the
discount factor i.e., development charges has escaped
our attention. Learned counsel appearing for the review
petitioners presses into service a decision of the Apex
Court in Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and others
vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2012) 1
SCC 390 and argues that at least 60% deduction has to
be done since the land in question was admittedly
agricultural land and the comparable statistics were
taken from the sale deeds which had comprised the lands
converted to non-agricultural uses.
2. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.M.M.Khannur,
appearing for the land losers vehemently contends that
notwithstanding the absence of a formal conversion order
under section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964, there is enough intrinsic material to treat the
subject land on par with converted ones and therefore
there is absolutely no case for review. In support of that
he draws our attention to paragraph 3(i) & 3(ii) of the
judgment in review. He banks upon the Apex Court
decision in Union of India vs. Premlata, 2022 SAR
Online (SC) 331.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and having perused the papers, we are
inclined to grant indulgence in these review petitions
because there is error apparent on the face of the record
namely the discount factor has not been adverted to in
the judgment in review and therefore that has
occasioned loss to the acquiring body; the same has to
be rectified.
4. What should be the percentage of deduction
towards developmental charges does not admit an
arithmetically fixed answer; it depends upon a host of
factors including the local housing laws; to our
knowledge, when a land is converted to non agricultural
user under section 95 of the 1964 Act, ordinarily about
40% of the land so converted, needs to be earmarked for
amenities and public utilities. Therefore, this 40% of the
land cannot be reckoned for the purpose of valuation of
the land. This apart, the development would involve
investment by the land owner; keeping overall factors
and what has been observed in paragraphs 3(i) & (ii) of
the judgment in review, we are of a considered view that
the discount value should be 40%. This is supported by
the latest decision of the Apex Court in Union of India
vs. Premlata, 2022 SAR Online (SC) 331.
In the above circumstances these review petitions
partly succeed; while computing the market value of the
lands in question in terms of our judgment in review,
there shall be 40% deduction towards developmental
charges. Rest of the things are left intact.
Since review petitions are allowed, the entire Court
fees paid on the memorandum of review petitions as also
on the memorandum of appeals in question need to be
refunded to the review petitioners.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mrk/-
