Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Commissioner Cum vs Shri Ramakrishna P on 25 July, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8930 OF 2012 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.11201 OF 2012(LAC)
IN M.F.A.NO.8930 OF 2012:
BETWEEN:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
PUTTUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY MRS. LEENA C. SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. SHRI RAMAKRISHNA P.,
S/O P. SHANKARNARAYANAYYA,
ANURAGA, NEAR KEMMIJE TEMPLE,
PUTTUR TALUK.
Digitally
signed by
SHARANYA T
Location:
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
HIGH COURT K.S.R.T.C., MANGALORE DIVISION,
OF
KARNATAKA MANGALORE, D.K.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.D.SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED9.2.2012
PASSED IN LAC NO.8/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE(SR.DN), PUTTUR D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
IN M.F.A.NO.11201 OF 2012:
BETWEEN:
1. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MANGALORE DIVISION
MANGALORE, D.K.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
CENTRAL OFFICES, KSRTC, K.H.ROAD
BANGALORE-560 027.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.D.SURANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI RAMAKRISHNA P.,
S/O P. SHANKARNARAYANAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
ANURAGA, NEAR KEMMIJE TEMPLE,
PUTTUR -574 201
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
PUTTUR-574 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. ALEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
MRS. LEENA C. SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
09.02.2012 PASSED IN LAC NO.08/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) PUTTUR, D.K., PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are listed for admission.
I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant in M.F.A.No.8930/2012 and for
respondent No.2-KSRTC in M.F.A.No.11201/2012.
2. The challenge before this Court is questioning the
order passed in LAC No.8/2006 dated 9.2.2012 on the file of
the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Puttur D.K., wherein the trial Court
having taken note of Notification of the property which is the
subject matter in question i.e. land bearing Sy.No.279/1B1B1A
measuring 40 cents belonging to the claimant was acquired by
the LAO by publishing the Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act in the Karnataka Gazette dated
17.10.2003 for the purpose of KSRTC bus stand in Sulia. The
LAO has passed an award on 28.2.2005 by fixing the rate at
Rs.15,000/- per cent and the same is challenged before the
trial Court and the trial Court enhanced the same for
Rs.40,000/- per cent and hence the challenge is made before
this Court by the State Government as well as by KSRTC in
these two appeals.
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
3. The main contention of the respective counsel before
this Court is that the Reference Court seriously holding that
land in question is located in heart of the town. The said
reasoning of the trial Court is result of misleading of the award
made by the trial Court in LAC No.1/2008. The said award was
marked before the trial Court as Ex.R2 and Ex.R2 only refers
that certain Offices like the Offices of the Sub-Registrar, Taluka
Office, the other Offices are located at a distance of half a
kilometer of a land which was the subject matter of LAC
1/2008. Therefore, the said land was not in the midst of the
town. The observation of the trial Court that the land acquired
presently under the preliminary notification dated 17.10.2003 is
located within the midst of the town is erroneous finding and
the same is unsustainable.
4. The counsel also vehemently contended that in the
cross examination of PW1 categorically admits that the other
Government Offices are located at the distance of one kilometer
from the land which was acquired and in spite of the said
admission also, the trial Court has committed an error in fixing
the rate at Rs.40,000/- per cent. The counsel also would submit
that this land is behind the bus stand and the front portion of
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
the land was acquired in the year 1996 and it has attained its
finality by fixing the rate at Rs.18,000/- per cent and even for
adding of 10% of the amount more than the amount fix by the
trial Court, it comes to Rs.28,800/- and the trial Court
committed an error in considering Exs.P1, P2 and the very
same documents are executed by the very claimant and hence,
no basis for fixing the rate of Rs.40,000/- per cent.
5. The counsel in support of his argument relied upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in case of SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER Vs. M.K.RAFIQ SAHEB
reported in (2011) 7 SCC 714, contend that the Apex Court
held that though the land acquired was 34 guntas, sale
instance Ex.P5 which pertained to site measuring around 30' x
40', could be relied on and was rightly relied upon by High
Court given other factors which made it relevant i.e. proximity
to acquired land and recentness of sale transaction and
appropriate deduction would be 60% and not 50% as
determined by the High Court. This judgment is also apply
applicable to the case on hand, since the property is located
behind the bus stand.
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case
of K.S.SHIVADEVAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. ASSISTANT
COMMISSINER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND
ANOTHER reported in (1996) 2 SCC 62. In this judgment also
the Apex Court while fixing rate taken note of valuation of land
for compensation and land situated in a developing area, but no
development has taken place as on the date of the Notification
under Section 4(1), lands possessed of potential value for
building purposes, but not capable of putting to immediate use
for building purpose. Under the circumstances, the Court also
observed that the extent of deduction for development charges
depends upon development needed in each case. In the
circumstances of the case, deduction of 53% under Building
Rules and further deduction towards development charges at
33.1/3% ordered by the High Court is not illegal and hence, the
counsel referring the judgment, would contend that the same
has to be deducted.
7. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case
of CHANDRASHEKAR (D) BY L.Rs. AND OTHERS Vs. LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2012
SC 446, wherein also the Apex Court while considering the
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
material on record taken note of determination of
compensation, deduction, calculation and quantum of deduction
should be divided into two components. First for keeping aside
space for providing development infrastructure and second as
deduction for developmental expenditure. Two components
under the head of development put together, should not exceed
upper bench mark of 67% and further cumulatively all
deductions i.e. under head development and also deductions
other than that should not exceed upper bench mark of 75%.
The counsel referring these judgment would vehemently
contend that a nominal increase can be considered and also the
Court has to take note of the property is located behind the bus
stand and the enhancement of Rs.40,000/- per cent is
erroneous and the same is exorbitant and it requires
interference.
8. The counsel for the State i.e. High Court Government
Pleader would vehemently contend that the amount fixed by
the trial Court i.e. Rs.40,000/- per cent is arbitrary and same is
not based on documentary evidence. However, the counsel also
relied upon the rate fixed by the concerned authority is taking
note of the property which is located nearby the place and
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
potentiality also considered and in column number in Annex-3
in respect of Sulia Town sites per cent rate is assessed as near
the bus stand Rs.73,000/- which is attached to highway and
other cities Rs.70,000/- and in respect of the commercial it is
Rs.1,05,000/-. Counsel for the respondent claimant would
vehemently contend that this is a case for enhancement and
not awarded reasonable compensation and the document which
has been relied upon by the State itself clearly discloses that it
is around Rs.70,000/- per cent, if property is situated near the
bus stand and also not in dispute that this property is acquired
for extension of the bus stand and earlier also property was
acquired in the year 1996 and this notification of the year 2003
and escalation also to be considered and also to be added for
the value of the property in view of the establishment of bus
stand by acquiring the property in the year 1996 itself. The
land value which was acquired in the year 2003 is increased
and also Court has to look into the potentiality of the property
and also counsel would vehemently contend that the trial Court
while considering the material on record in paragraph Nos.9
and 10 discussed in detail and also considered in paragraph
Nos.13 and 14 and in paragraph No.17 also taken note of the
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
order passed in LAC No.1/2008 and admittedly the rate is also
increased in respect of the earlier acquisition for the year 1996
to 2002 at the rate of Rs.18,000/- and it does not require any
interference.
9. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, the points that
would arise for consideration of this Court are:
i) Whether the trial Court has committed an error in fixing
the rate at Rs.40,000/- per cent and the same is exorbitant as
contended by the respective appellants?
ii) Whether it requires interference?
iii) What order?
10. Having heard the respective counsel it is not in dispute
that for establishment of bus stand at Sulia earlier land was
acquired in the year 1996 and no dispute with regard to the
said fact and also it is not in dispute that the compensation
awarded was finalized at the rate of Rs.18,000/- in respect of
the acquisition of the year 1996. It is also not in dispute that
this property was acquired in the year 2003 and the said
property is also attached to the bus stand and no doubt the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
same is behind the bus stand and the same will not make any
difference. When the property is acquired for the purpose of
expanding the bus stand and the same is adjacent to the bus
stand and automatically when the property was acquired for
the purpose of bus stand in the year 1996, the value of the
property will be increased and no doubt the claimants are relied
upon the documents at Exs.P1 and P2 wherein, in 2002 the
property was sold for an amount of Rs.1,47,500/- per cent and
the same is not accepted by the trial Court and the same is also
in respect of only 25 cents of land and marginal land and the
same is not accepted, but taken note of the potentiality of the
property, since all the government offices are located nearby,
and also when the bus stand was established in view of the
notification of 1996 and this is also for expanding of the bus
stand and having considered the surrounding area and
potentiality of the property, the trial Court fixed the rate at
Rs.40,000/- per cent. Even the documents which have been
relied upon by the Government Advocate itself in Annex-3, it is
clear that if sites are located near the bus stand, if it is
attached to highway it is Rs.73,000/- and in respect of the
others cities Rs.70,000/- and in respect of the commercial
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
property it is Rs.1,05,000/- and the same is also in 2001 and
2002 and when such being the material available on record, the
very contention of the counsel for the KSRTC as well as the
Government that Rs.40,000/- fixed by the trial Court is
exorbitant, cannot be accepted.
11. No doubt the property is not converted land but
admittedly the same is located by the side of the bus stand.
Even if it is not the converted, the same would be potential
property and property is also acquired for the purpose of
extending the bus stand and hence the very judgments relied
upon by the counsel for the KSRTC that deduction has to be
made cannot be accepted and the very entire land was used for
the purpose of extending the bus stand and now bus stand is in
existence in Sulia Taluk Headquarters, and hence, I do not find
any error committed by the trial Court and the trial Court taken
note of the potentiality of the property in paragraph No.9 and
also in 10 also discussed with regard to the earlier acquisition
and relied upon the document of Ex.R3 as well as in paragraph
Nos.13 and 14 also in detail discussed with regard to the earlier
matters which pertains to acquisition made in LAC No.1/2002
and also LAC No.1/2008 and also compared the same the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
acquisition made in the year 1996 and also the acquisition
made in the year 2003 and having considered the
compensation fixed by the Court in LAC No.1/2008 is not taken
into consideration but however, considering the material Exs.P1
and P2 only comes to the conclusion that Rs.40,000/- per cent
is the proper compensation in respect of the acquired land in
the year 2003 and not considered the sale consideration of
Exs.P1 and P2 i.e. Rs.1,47,500/- while granting and enhancing
the same also, though relied upon by the claimant i.e. Exs.P1
and P2 and having considered the notification of the year 1996
and as well as he notification of the year 2003, the rate fixed
by the trial Court an amount of Rs.40,000/- per cent is not
exorbitant as contended by both the appellants. The decisions
relied upon by the counsel for KSRTC not comes to the aid of
the appellant, since the same is not developing area but the
land acquired is in the heart of city i.e. near the bus stand and
attached to the bus stand and for the purpose of expanding the
bus stand. Hence, I do not find any merits in both the appeals
to set aside the order of the trial Court and reduce the
compensation fixed by the trial Court. The contention of the
respondents counsel that reasonable compensation has to be
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25829
MFA No. 8930 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 11201 of 2012
awarded even in the absence of the appeal filed by the claimant
and the said contention also cannot be accepted, since no
appeal is filed being aggrieved of the order of the trial Court.
12. In view of the discussions made about, I pass the
following
ORDER
Both the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
