Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma vs The Special Land Acquisition ... on 3 August, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27298
MFA No. 2865 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2865 OF 2018 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
SMT JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
W/O LATE THIRUMALEGOWDA
BYADARABILUGALI VILLAGE
HARANAHALLI HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HARANGI RESERVOIR PROJECT
Digitally signed HUNSUR
by NOW AT MUDA COMPLEX
DHANALAKSHMI NEAR ANDOLANA CIRCLE
MURTHY RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR
Location: High MYSURU-570 001.
Court of
Karnataka
2. CAUVERY NIRAVARI NIGAM LTD
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LEENA S SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R1:
SRI. GAUTHAM B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27298
MFA No. 2865 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:19.10.2010 PASSED ON LAC NO.67/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, HUNSUR,
SITTING AT PERIYPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'LA
Act') for enhancement of the compensation granted by the
Reference Court by award dated 19.10.2010.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant
is the owner of the land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas at
Sy.No.66/1 situated at Byadarabilugali Village, Periyapatna
Taluk and the said land has been acquired under a
preliminary notification dated 13.03.2003 for the purpose
of Periyapatna Lift Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition
Officer passed an award on 17.01.2004 determining the
market value of the acquired land at Rs.36,800/- per acre.
Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed an
NC: 2023:KHC:27298
MFA No. 2865 of 2018
application under Section 18(1) of the LA Act. The same
has been referred to the Reference Court and it has been
numbered as LAC No.67/2009. On consideration of the
arguments of the parties and the materials available on
record, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation
from Rs.36,800/- to Rs.62,060/- per acre. Being
aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant
has contended that for the very same purpose, adjacent
land in the very same village has been acquired by the
respondents by preliminary notification dated 07.12.1985.
The Reference Court in LAC No.89/2017 has determined
the value at Rs.7,26.920/- per acre by judgment dated
16.09.2017. Hence, he contended that the claimant is also
entitled for enhancement of compensation in terms of the
award passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.89/2017.
4. He further contended that since the preliminary
notification in the case on hand has been issued on
13.03.2003, the Court has to award additional percentage
NC: 2023:KHC:27298
MFA No. 2865 of 2018
of cumulative annual increase in the value of the property.
In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of M/S.ACQUAINTED
REALTORS LLP ETC. vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos.1330/1332/2021),
wherein the Apex Court has increased 8% in the market
value. Hence he sought for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing
for the State has not disputed that the adjacent land has
been acquired for the very same purpose by preliminary
notification dated 07.12.1985 and the Reference Court in
LAC No.89/2017 has awarded Rs.7,26,920/- per acre. She
contended that nominal percentage of increase may be
made while enhancing the compensation amount.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the original records.
7. It is not in dispute that the claimant is the owner
of the land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas at Sy.No.66/1
NC: 2023:KHC:27298
MFA No. 2865 of 2018
situated at Byadarabilugali Village, Periyapatna Taluk and
the said land has been acquired under a preliminary
notification dated 13.03.2003 for the purpose of
Periyapatna Lift Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition
Officer passed an award on 17.01.2004 determining the
market value of the acquired land at Rs.36,800/- per acre
and the Reference Court enhanced the compensation from
Rs.36,800/- to Rs.62,060 per acre.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has
produced the judgment passed by the Reference court in
LAC No.89/2017, wherein the adjacent land has been
acquired for the very same purpose under preliminary
notification dated 07.12.1985. In the said case, the
Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from
Rs.10,480/- to Rs.7,26,920/- per acre. It is submitted by
the learned counsel for the appellant that the said
judgment has attained finality as the respondents have not
challenged the same.
NC: 2023:KHC:27298
MFA No. 2865 of 2018
9. In respect of grant of compensation by the
Reference Court in LAC No.89/2017, the same has not
been disputed by the learned Government Pleader.
10. The Apex Court in the case of BALWANT SINGH
(D) THROUGH LRs. GURBINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.2736/
2019), in para 8 has held as below:
"8. We are in agreement with the
judgment of the High Court that the
comparable sale transactions of small extents
of land which were brought on record by the
Claimants are not a proper indicia for
determining the market value. The High Court
was also right in not taking into account the
transactions pertaining to auction of small
booths. Considering the locational advantage of
the land in issue and the market value that was
fixed by the judgment in Escort's (supra) and
Ashrafi's case (supra), we are in agreement
with the High Court that Rs.435/- per square
yard is a just and reasonable compensation for
land acquired by the Notification dated 7th
NC: 2023:KHC:27298
MFA No. 2865 of 2018
April, 1986. It is relevant to refer to the
judgment in Escort's case (supra) by which the
High Court determined the compensation for
3.59 acres of land situated in Village Mewla
Maharajpur acquired pursuant to a Notification
under Section 4 of the Act on 30th July, 1987.
By placing reliance on documentary evidence,
the Reference Court awarded a compensation of
Rs.255.49/- per square yard. The High Court
taking note of Kasturi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 1 SCC 354, Agricultural Produce Market
Committee v. Land Acquisition Officer and
Asstt. Commr. (1996) 10 SCC 629, Karnataka
Housing Board v. LAO, (2011) 2 SCC 246, the
rise in price of the land enhanced the
compensation with an increase of 12 per cent
per annum for a period of 32 months between
the date of the sale transactions relied upon by
the landowners till the Notification dated 30th
July, 1987. On that basis, the High Court in
Escort's case (supra) held that the Claimants
were entitled to a compensation of Rs.337.20/-
per square yard. A Notification issued under
Section 4 of the Act on 2nd August, 1989 for
acquisition of 184.66 acres of land Village
Mewla Maharajpur, Faridabad was, inter alia,
NC: 2023:KHC:27298
MFA No. 2865 of 2018
subject matter of the judgment in Ashrafi's case
(supra). The High Court determined
compensation of Rs. 220/- per square yard in
respect of land situated in the said Village
Mewla Maharajpur. This Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs.325/- per square yard. It is
clear from the record that the land situated in
Village Mewla Maharajpur, District Faridabad is
not far away from Ajronda where the land
covered by the Notifications which are the
subject matter of the present Appeals is
situated. Moreover, the evidence on record
shows that the land in issue has better potential
in comparison to the land situated in Village
Mewla Maharajpur. Accordingly, in respect of
the Notification dated 5th June, 1992, we are of
the opinion that the increase at the rate of five
per cent per annum granted by the High Court
for the period between 1986 to 1992 needs to
be enhanced to 12 per cent per annum. It was
observed in ONGC Limited v. Rameshbhai
Jivanbhai Patel as follows:
"13. Primarily, the increase in land
prices depends on four factors: situation of
the land, nature of development in
surrounding area, availability of land for
development in the area, and the demand
NC: 2023:KHC:27298
MFA No. 2865 of 2018
for land in the area. In rural areas, unless
there is any prospect of development in the
vicinity, increase in prices would be slow,
steady and gradual, without any sudden
spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in
urban or semi-urban areas, where the
development is faster, where the demand
for land is high and where there is
construction activity all around, the
escalation in market price is at a much
higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In
some pockets in big cities, due to rapid
development and high demand for land,
the escalations in prices have touched even
30% to 50% or more per year, during the
nineties."
11. Taking into consideration the place where the
property is situated, submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, judgments relied upon by him
and the materials available on record, I am of the opinion
that the market value of the acquired land has to be
enhanced from Rs.62,060/- to Rs.10,00,000/-.
12. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
(i) Appeal is allowed in part with costs.
(ii) The compensation determined by the
Reference Court at Rs.62,060/- is
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27298
MFA No. 2865 of 2018
enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- with all the
consequential benefits.
(iii) The appellant is not entitled to interest for
the delayed period of 2636 days in filing
the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CM
