Gurumegouda vs The Deputy Chief Engineer (West)
2024 Latest Caselaw 10683 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Gurumegouda vs The Deputy Chief Engineer (West) on 19 April, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                       PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                          AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

              MFA NO.5002 OF 2019 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

  1.    GURUMEGOUDA,
        S/O BALEGOUDA, GRICULTURE
        DEAD BY LRS

1(a) NANJAMMA,
     W/O LATE GURURAMEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

1(b)    HONGEREGOWDA J G,
        S/O LATE GURURAMEGOWDA,
        AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

1(c)    BOREGOWDA J G,
        S/O LATE GURURAMEGOWDA,
        AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

1(d)    SHANKAREGOWDA J G,
        S/O LATE GURURAMEGOWDA,
        AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                           -2-




1(e)   SUDHA,
       D/O LATE GURURAMEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

       ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
       JAVARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       BELLUR HOBLI,
       NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
       MANDYA DISTRICT-571432.
                                         ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WEST)
   SOUTHERN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION
   NO.18, MILLERS ROAD CONTONMENT
   BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER,
   SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
   PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
   MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANDRACHUD A, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
 SMT AZRA J DUNDGE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED.18.01.2019 PASSED IN LAC.NO.31/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE C/c SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 18(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

    THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 05TH APRIL, 2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    -3-




                             JUDGMENT

The land loser is in appeal challenging the award of the

Reference Court which awarded Rs.11,000/- per gunta as the

market value of his land bearing Sy.No.466 measuring 3

acres 16.5 guntas situated at Bellur Village, Nagamangala

Taluk, Mandya District. The appellant claimed Rs.2 lakhs per

gunta before the Reference Court and in this appeal, the

claim is restricted to Rs.40,000/- per gunta. In terms of the

impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court

enhanced the market value to Rs.11,000/- per gunta

modifying the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition

officer who awarded Rs.5,507/- per gunta.

2. The admitted factual position is Section 4(1)

notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Act of 1894') was published on

01.09.2008 for the formation of railway track from Bengaluru

to Mangaluru via Hassan. The final notification was issued on

10.03.2010 under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894. On

10.12.2011, the award was passed by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer determined Rs.5,507/- per gunta as the

market value. In addition, statutory benefits were awarded.

The land loser on 21.01.2012 sought reference.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/

appellant would submit that the Reference Court did not take

into account a sale deed for the year 2002, two sale deeds

for the year 2003, one sale deed for the year 2006, and

three sale deeds for the year 2007, marked at Ex.P1 to Ex-

P7 respectively. He would also submit that by taking into

consideration the appreciation in the value of the land, the

average value of the land per gunta would be Rs.68,444/-.

However, the appellant is restricting his claim to Rs.40,000/-

per gunta as he is unable to pay the court fee for a higher

claim.

4. It is also the submission of the learned counsel

for the appellant that the land though a dry land, at the time

of acquisition had all the potential for non-agricultural use as

it is abutting the National Highway surrounded by colleges

and a petrol bank. It is also his submission that Bellur

Village was a Panchayat earlier and now it is a Pattana

panchayat. He would also refer to Ex.P.8 - the certificate

issued by the Grama Panchayat, Bellur which would indicate

that the Umarnagar Extension area is in the close vicinity of

the land acquired. Thus, he would urge that the award

passed by the Reference Court is grossly inadequate

considering the market value of the land prevailing at the

time of acquisition.

5. Learned advocate for the respondents would justify

the award passed by the Reference Court and would submit

that all the material factors have been taken into

consideration before passing the award. It is also the

submission that the sale deeds produced by the claimant are

not relevant to determine the correct market value of the

acquired land which measured 3 acres and 16.5 guntas. The

sale deeds referred to by the claimants are the sale deeds of

small residential sites or commercial sites measuring about a

gunta or two and the parameters to evaluate such a large

extent of the land way different from the parameters to

evaluate the land measuring less than two guntas.

6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at

the bar and perused the records.

7. The following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the appellant established that the market value of the land is Rs.40,000/- per gunta.

(ii) Whether the Reference Court is justified in arriving at the market value of the land at Rs.11,000/- per gunta without considering the sale deeds produced by the claimants.

8. As could be noticed from the impugned judgment,

it is evident that the Reference Court has placed reliance on

the judgment in M.A. (L.A.C.) No.14/2013 on the file of I

Additional District Judge, Mandya arising from the award in

LAC No.35/2011 to determine the market value of the land

in question. The said judgment is marked at Ex.R.2. The

survey number of the said land in M.A. (LAC) No.14/2013 is

453/4 whereas the survey number of the land acquired in

the present case is 466.

9. The land in M.A.(LAC) No.14/2013 was acquired

vide notification dated 18.04.2007. In the case on hand, the

land was acquired vide notification dated 01.09.2008. Thus,

the land in question is acquired 1 year and 4 months and 14

days after the acquisition of land in LAC No.35/11.

10. The Appellate Court in M.A. (LAC) No.14/2013

has taken into account the registered sale deeds dated

07.12.2005 and 12.10.2006. Those sale deeds are of the

agricultural lands in Bellur village. Based on the said sale

deeds, the Appellate Court has arrived at a market value of

Rs.4 lakhs per acre for the land acquired in 2008.

11. The Reference Court in the present case has

decided the market value placing reliance on the

aforementioned judgment. It is to be noticed that in earlier

proceeding, the land was acquired for the formation of a

channel. Whereas the land in the present case is acquired for

laying the railway track and constructing a railway station.

12. While fixing the market value, the Reference

Court in the impugned judgment and award has given a 9%

escalation for one year. The time differential is 1 year 4

months and 14 days.

13. The appellant's contention that the Reference

Court should have taken into account the sale deeds at Ex.

P1 to P7 to fix the market value is not acceptable. Those sale

deeds pertain a small extent of land measuring 1 or 2

guntas. The land in question is a dry land measuring 3 acres

and 16.5 guntas. Thus, absolutely there is no comparison.

14. On the other hand in M.A. (LAC)No.14/2013 the

Court has taken into consideration the market value of a

larger extent of agricultural land in Bellur village sold in 2005

and 2006, to determine the value of the land acquired in

2008. In the case on hand, the land is acquired after 1 year

4 months, and 21 days. This being the position the

Reference Court is justified in basing its valuation on the

value determined in M.A. (LAC) No.14/2013. To the said

extent, the judgment appears to be sound. Though the

Reference Court has not assigned any reasons for ignoring

the sale deeds at Ex.P1 to Ex P7, for the reasons recorded

above, this Court is of the view that no fault can be found in

not applying the valuation of the small pieces of lands in

those sale deeds.

15. As already noticed, the Reference Court has taken

into consideration a 9% escalation for one year for

determining the market value.

16. It is a well-settled principle of law that the

escalation or de-escalation depends on various factors. The

potential for growth in and around the land acquired has to

be taken into consideration. Admittedly in this case, the land

is acquired for laying the railway track and constructing the

railway station. The appellant claims that the railway station

is built on his land. He has produced photographs of the

railway station asserting that it is built on his land. The

respondent has not produced any materials to show in which

survey number, the railway station is built. To a specific

suggestion in the cross-examination of Rw1- the land

acquisition officer, that the railway station is built on the

claimant's land, he pleads ignorance. The beneficiary has not

produced any materials to show that the railway station is

built on some other land. Rw1 has admitted in the cross-

examination that Bellur village is abutting to Umar Nagar and

the railway station is about 1 and ½ km from Umar Nagar. It

is also admitted that Umar Nagar is within Pattan Panchayat

limits and Bellur which is adjacent to Umar Nagar is within

gram panchayat limits.

- 10 -

17. If the above factors are taken into consideration,

it is evident that the claimant's land is located about 1 and ½

km from Pattan panchayat limits and in his land, the railway

station is built. Under these circumstances, this Court is of

the view that 9% escalation is on the lower side. In General

Manager Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Vs

Rameshbhai Jeevanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745, the

Apex Court has held that 7.5% escalation per annum would

be appropriate for lands acquired in 1987. It is also relevant

to note that in the last 2 decades, there has been a sudden

appreciation in the land value even in rural areas. The land

in question is acquired in 2008. Considering the materials on

record, this Court is of the view that 15% per annum

escalation is to be applied to determine market value.

18. The Reference Court has provided only 9%

escalation for one year and no escalation is provided for 4

months and 14 days. This Court is of the view that escalation

is to be applied for 1 year and 5 months. Thus the market

value of the land would be Rs.4,88,750/- per acre.

- 11 -

19. Hence the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

      (ii)    The judgment and award dated 18.01.2019
              on   the    file    of       Senior    Civil   Judge,
              Nagamangala        in    LAC     No.31/2015       are
              modified.

(iii) The market value of the land bearing Sy. No. 466 measuring 3 acres 16.5 guntas of Bellur village Taluk, Nagamangala District Mandya is determined at Rs.4,88,750/- per acre.

(iv) In addition, the appellants are entitled to statutory consequential benefits.

(v) Appellants are entitled to proportionate costs from the respondents.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE BRN