Sharanappa Ragappa Shahapur vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 5642 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sharanappa Ragappa Shahapur vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 23 February, 2024

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                                                   1            MFA No.101941/2014




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                               DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                                PRESENT
                                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
                                                  AND
                                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
                                      MFA.NO.101941 OF 2014 (LAC)

                      BETWEEN
KM
SOMASHEKAR
                      1.    SHARANAPPA RAGAPPA SHAHAPUR
Digitally signed by
KM
SOMASHEKAR
                            SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
Date: 2024.02.24
10:22:19 +0530


                            GOURAMM W/O SHARANAPPA SHAHAPUR,
                            SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
                            WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD,

                            PARUSHURAM S/O SHARANAPPA SHAHAPUR,
                            SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

                            VIMALAKSHI W/O PARASHURAM SHAHAPUR,
                            AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,


                      2.    VANISHREE W/O SURESH HANGARAGI
                            AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

                      3.    SHRUIT PARASHURAM SHAHAPUR
                            AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

                      4.    MANJUNATH PARASHURAM SHAHAPUR
                            MINOR,

                      5.    PRIYANKA PARASHURAM SHAHAPUR
                            MINOR,

                            (APPELLANT NO. 4 & 5 ARE MINORS
                            R/BY THEIR MGM APPELLANT NO.1)

                            GOURAMMA W/O SHARANAPPA SHAHAPUR
                            SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS,
                      6.    MALLIKARJUN S/O SHARANAPPA SHAHAPUR,
                               2             MFA No.101941/2014




      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

7.    RAGAVENDRA S/O SHARNAPPA SHAHAPUR
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

8.    SRIDEVI W/O DEVANDRA VELLUR
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

9.    SHARADA W/O BHIMANNA DEVADURG
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

10.   SHANKRAMMA W/O SRINIVASALU GASTHY
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

      ALL ARE R/O: SIGIKERI, TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT.
                                                   ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UKP, BAGALKOT.
                                                  ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. KESHAVA REDDY, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT     AND    AWARD    DTD     10.12.2008     PASSED   IN
LAC.NO.196/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.) BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION       AND      SEEKING      ENHANCEMENT         OF
COMPENSATION.


      THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
13.02.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                       3                   MFA No.101941/2014




                               JUDGMENT

The claimants are in appeal not being satisfied with the

quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award

dated 10.12.2008 passed in L.A.C. No.196/2001 on the file of

learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bagalkot (for short,

'the Reference Court') and praying for re-determination of the

market value of the land acquired on the higher side.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Jagadish Patil for the

appellants/claimants and the learned Additional Advocate

General, Sri. Keshava Reddy for the respondent-State. Perused

the appeal papers as well as the Reference Court records.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present

appeal are that the notification dated 14.02.2000 under Section

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued for acquiring

the land including the land of the appellants-claimants bearing

Sy.No.124/1A/4/1 of Sigikeri Village for the purpose of

establishing the rehabilitation centre for the displaced persons

under the Upper Krishna Project. The SLAO determined the

market value of the land acquired at Rs.23,200/- per acre, and

on reference, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to

Rs.1,37,000/- per acre. The claimants not being satisfied with

the enhancement are before this Court in this appeal under

Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. Learned counsel Sri.Jagadish Patil for the appellants

would contend that the market value of the acquired land

determined by the SLAO as well as the Reference Court is far

less than the market value and further, it is submitted that the

market value determined is contrary to the material on record. It

is submitted that the appellants/claimants examined P.W.1 and

P.W.2 apart from marking Ex.P.1 to P.8 in support of their claim

to re-determine the market value. It is submitted that the land

acquired is adjacent to the Bagalkot Town and the land in

question was notified under Ex.P.5-notification dated 15.12.1987

including in planning area. Thus, the learned counsel would

submit that the land was having non-agricultural potentiality and

that, in and around the land in question, development had taken

place with the schools, hospitals, hotels coming up and that the

land has good connectivity. Further the learned counsel would

submit that in L.A.C. No.399/2002, the Reference Court has

awarded Rs.4,13,820/- per acre and he submits that the

appellants would be entitled for the same. Placing reliance on a

decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.F.A.

No.100574/2016 and connected matter, learned counsel would

submit that for the lands in questions involved in the said appeal

was of the same village i.e., Sigikeri village, which was acquired

for the purpose of establishing power grid under notification of

the year 2006 and the market value of the acquired lands

therein is fixed at Rs.192.89/- per sq. ft., and therefore, the

learned counsel would pray for de-escalation from Rs.192.89/-

per sq. ft and to determine the market value as on the date of

acquisition of the land under the present notification. Thus, he

prays for allowing the appeal enhancing the market value of the

lands acquired under Notification dated 14.02.2000.

5. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General

Sri.Keshava Reddy would submit that no material whatsoever is

placed on record by the appellants for enhancement of

compensation or re-determination of market value of the lands

acquired on the higher side. Learned Addl. Advocate General

would submit that the preliminary notification for acquisition is

dated 14.02.2000 and award was passed on 21.09.2000. No

document or sale exemplar of the year 2000 or nearer to the

said year is placed on record to claim higher compensation. In

the absence of cogent and acceptable material, he submits that

the claimants would not be entitled for enhancement of

compensation. Further he would submit that Ex.P2 and P3-Sale

Deeds are dated 19.10.1995 and 21.08.1996 respectively, the

same cannot be basis for determining the market value of the

lands in question. More over, he submits that those sale deeds

relate to very smaller piece of lands, which cannot be basis to

determine the market value of the lands acquired in the present

case. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

on perusal of the appeal papers including reference Court

records, the only point which falls for consideration is as to

whether the market value of the acquired lands determined by

the reference Court is proper and correct?

7. Answer to the above point would be in the 'Negative'

and the matter requires to be remanded for fresh consideration.

8. Determination of market value of the acquired land

would depend upon evidence adduced in the case.

Determination of compensation in each case depends upon

nature of the land, what is the evidence adduced in each case,

what is required to be assessed or determined and potentiality of

the land as on the date of acquisition. Onus to prove the

entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the

claimants. The claimants are expected to lead cogent and

proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily on the

claimants, which they can discharge while placing and proving on

record sale instances or such other evidences as they deem

proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for awarding

compensation which they rely on.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Land

Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda & Others1, at paragraphs-

28, 71 and 72 has laid down procedure or method that could be

adopted for determination of fair market value of the land

acquired. The said paragraphs read as under:

"28. We may notice that Part III provides for procedure and rights of the claimants to receive compensation for acquisition of their land and also states various legal remedies which are available to them under the scheme of the Act. Under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court determines the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. Section 23 provides guidelines, which would be taken into consideration by the court of competent jurisdiction while determining the compensation to be awarded for the acquired land. Section 24 of the Act is a negative provision and states what should not be considered by the court while determining the compensation. In other words, Sections 23 and 24 of the Act provide a complete scheme which can safely be termed as statutory guidelines and factors which are to be considered or not to be considered by the court while determining the market value of the acquired land. These provisions provide a limitation within which the court has to exercise its judicial discretion while ensuring that the claimants get a fair market value of the acquired land with statutory and permissible benefits. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act and the interpretation which these provisions have received in the past, it is difficult even to comprehend that there is possibility of providing any straitjacket formula which can be treated as panacea to resolve all controversies uniformly, in relation to determination of the value of the acquired land. This

(2010) 5 SCC 708

essentially must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

71. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act spell out the have and have-nots, applicable to the scheme of awarding compensation by the Collector but do not describe the methodology which should be adopted by the courts in determining the fair market value of the land at the relevant time. By development of law, the courts have adopted different methods for computing the compensation payable to the landowners depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The courts have been exercising their discretion by adopting different methods, inter alia the following methods have a larger acceptance in law:

(a) Sales statistics method.--In applying this method, it has been stated that, sales must be genuine and bona fide, should have been executed at the time proximate to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land and the land should be comparable to the acquired land. The land covered under the sale instance should have similar potential and occasion as that of the acquired land (Faridabad Gas Power Project, NTPC Ltd. v. Om Prakash12, Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.13 and Ravinder Narain v. Union of India14).

(b) Capitalisation of net income method.--This method has also been applied by the courts. In this method of determination of market value, capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method has been applied (Union of India v. Shanti Devi15 , Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi16 and Nelson Fernandes v. Land Acquisition Officer8).

(c) Agricultural yield basis method.--Agricultural yield of the acquired land with reference to revenue records and keeping in mind the potential and nature of the land--wet (irrigated), dry and barren (banjar).

72. Normally, where the compensation is awarded on agricultural yield or capitalisation method basis, the principle of multiplier is also applied for final determination. These are broadly the methods which are applied by the

courts with further reduction on account of development charges. In some cases, depending upon the peculiar facts, this Court has accepted the principle of granting compound increase at the rate of 10% to 15% of the fair market value determined in accordance with law to avoid any unfair loss to the claimants suffering from compulsive acquisition. However, this consideration should squarely fall within the parameters of Section 23 while taking care that the negative mandate contained in Section 24 of the Act is not offended. How one or any of the principles aforestated is to be applied by the courts, would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case."

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision has

held that no straightjacket formula to determine the value of the

acquired land and the Court in its discretion could adopt any one

of the methods such as, (a) sales statistics method, (b)

capitalization of net income method and (c) agricultural yield

basis method, depending upon the facts and circumstances of

each case.

11. In the case on hand, preliminary notification for

acquisition of the land of the appellants in Sy.No.124/1A/4/1 of

Sigikeri village, Bagalkot Taluk measuring 4 acres 28 guntas,

was issued on 14.02.2000 and award in respect of said land was

passed on 21.09.2000 determining the market value of the

acquired land at Rs.23,200/- per acre. On reference, the

reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.1,37,000/- per acre.

Not being satisfied, the claimants are in appeal before this Court

praying for enhancement of compensation by re-determining the

market value of the acquired land on the higher side.

12. As stated above and based on the principles laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court in its discretion could

adopt any one of the methods such as, (a) sales statistics

method, (b) capitalization of net income method and (c)

agricultural yield basis method, depending upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. The reference Court has failed to

adopt any one of the above stated methods to determine the

market value of the lands in question. The reference Court

placed reliance on Ex.P8, award passed in LAC No.195/2001 by

the Lok Adalath to determine the market value at Rs.1,37,000/-

per acre. In LAC No.195/2001, notification under Section 4(1)

was issued on 7.10.1999 and award was passed on 21.09.2000,

but it is a consent order. The consent order cannot be the basis

for determining the market value of the acquired lands in the

present case. The Court has duty to determine the correct and

fair market value of the acquired land based on material on

record. The appellants/claimants may be entitled for more than

the amount determined based on Ex.P8, consent award passed

by Lok Adalath.

13. Ex.P2 and P3 are the Sale Deeds dated 19.10.1995

and 21.08.1996 in respect of 4050 sq.ft. and 2700 sq.ft.

respectively. The sale deeds relating to smaller residential plots

cannot be the basis for determining the market value of higher

extent of land. Thus, in the absence of cogent and acceptable

material on record, the reference Court is not justified in

determining the market value of the acquired land at

Rs.1,37,000/- per acre and it is not fair determination of market

value. There is no material before this Court to re-determine the

market value of the acquired lands.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants placed

reliance on the judgment of this Court in MFA No.100574/2016

c/w MFA No.101345/2016, dated 20.10.2016, to contend that

the lands acquired of the same village under notification dated

25.5.2006 and 26.02.2007, the market value is determined at

Rs.192.89/- per sq.ft., which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court. Learned counsel Sri. Jagadish Patil placing reliance on the

said judgment prays for de-escalation and to re-determine the

market value.

15. It is settled position of law that the market value of

the subsequent year's acquisition cannot be the basis for

previous year's acquisition. In the instant case, preliminary

notification is of the year 2000 and market value of the lands

acquired in the year 2006 or 2007 cannot be the basis for

determining the market value of the land acquired in the year

2000. In the absence of any sale exemplar for in and around

year of the acquisition, the Court would not be in a position to

determine the market value of the lands acquired.

16. PW1 in his evidence though stated that the land in

question is nearer to Bagalkot town and near to Vijaya Pipes

Factory, no material whatsoever is placed on record to establish

the same. Thus, in the above circumstances, the impugned

judgment and award requires to be set-aside and matter needs

reconsideration by the reference Court.

17. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER a. The above appeal stands allowed.

b. The judgment and award dated 10.12.2008 passed in L.A.C. No.196/2001 by the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bagalkot, is hereby set-aside.

c. The matter is remitted back to the reference Court for fresh determination of market value of the acquired land.

d. The reference Court shall afford an opportunity to both the parties to adduce their fresh evidence and thereafter, determine the market value of the acquired land.

e. Since the acquisition is of the year 2000 and LAC is of the year 2001, we deem it appropriate to direct the reference Court to dispose off the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of original records.

f. Without expecting further notice, both the parties shall appear before the reference Court on 20.03.2024.

g. The registry is directed to transmit the original records to the reference Court forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KMS/JTR