Karnataka High Court
Sri Gadigeppa S/O Basappa ... vs The Assistant Commissioner on 4 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
M.F.A. NO.103995 OF 2022 (LAC)
C/W MFA NOS.103994 AND 104457 OF 2022
IN MFA NO. 103995 OF 2022:
BETWEEN
SRI. NAGAPPA BASALINGAPPA HUNSYAL,
SINCE DECEASED R/BY. LRS
SMT. SUMITRA W/O. GURUSIDDAPPA AMBADAGATTI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL, PIN CODE-591102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASHANK S. HEGDE AND
SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
Digitally
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
signed by BAILHONGAL-591102.
MANJANNA
E
Location: 2. THE CHIEF OFFICER,
HIGH
COURT OF TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BAILHONGAL,
KARNATAKA REPT. BY SEVAGE BOARD, BENGALURU-560001,
REGARDING SEWEGE TREATMENT PLANT, BAILHONGAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2017 PASSED
IN LAC.NO.251/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 18 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
IN MFA NO. 103994 OF 2022:
BETWEEN
1. SRI. GADIGEPPA S/O. BASAPPA
SHETTEPPANAVAR @ KIDATAL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA
SHETTEPPANAVAR @ KIDATAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
3. SMT. NILAWWA W/O. BASAPPA
SHETTEPPANAVAR @ KIDATAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
4. SMT. SHETAWWA W/O. BASAPPA
SHETTEPPANAVAR @ KIDATAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
5. SMT. YALLAWWA W/O. MAHADEV
KURBAR @ KIDATAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
6. SMT. NILAWWA W/O. SHETEPPA
SHETTEPPANAVAR @ KIDATAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O. BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
PIN CODE-591102. (ALL ARE REPRESENTED
THROUGH GPA HOLDER APPELLANT NO.1).
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHASHANK S. HEGDE AND
SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BAILHONGAL-591102.
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BAILHONGAL,
REPT. BY SEVAGE BOARD, BENGALURU-560001,
REGARDINFG SEWEGE TREATMENT PLANT BAILHONGAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R2)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD 13.12.2017
PASSED IN LAC.NO.270/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BAILHONGAL, AND BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF L.A.ACT.
IN MFA NO. 104457 OF 2022:
BETWEEN
SRI. MALLIKARJUN BALAPPA DUBBADMARADI,
PA HOLDER OF SMT. RUDRAWWA
W/O. BALAPPA DUBBADMARADI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE-590001.
..APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASHANK S. HEGDE AND
SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BAILHONGAL-591102.
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BAILHONGAL,
REPT. BY SEVAGE BOARD BENGALURU-560001,
REGARDING SEWEGE TREATMENT PLANT, BAILHONGAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2017
PASSED IN LAC.NO.271/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 06.06.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
M.F.A. No.103995/2022 is filed by the petitioner -
Nagappa Basalingappa Hunsyal against the judgment and
award dated 13.12.2017 passed in L.A.C. No.251/2012; MFA
No.103994/2022 is filed by the petitioners - Gadigeppa and
five others against the judgment and award dated 13.12.2017
passed in L.A.C. No.270/2012 and MFA No.104457/2022 is filed
by the petitioner - Mallikarjun Balappa Dubbadmaradi against
the judgment and award dated 13.12.2017 passed in L.A.C.
No.271/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal.
2. By the impugned judgment and award, the
Reference Court has partly allowed the reference made by
respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner, Land Acquisition
Officer, Bailhongal, under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act ("L.A. Act" for short) in L.A.C. Nos.251/2012, 270/2012 and
271/2012, fixing the compensation at Rs.31,000/- per gunta,
Rs.12,40,000/- per acre and Rs.31,000/- per gunta respectively
to their acquired lands with all other statutory benefits.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranks before the Reference Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
Respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner, Land
Acquisition Officer, Bailhongal has acquired the petitioners'
lands bearing Sy. No.125/A2 measuring 17 guntas, Sy.
No.127/1 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and Sy. No.126/2
measuring 24 guntas, situated at Bailhongal alongwith other
lands by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act
dated 07.04.2011, for the purpose of sewage treatment plant
at Bailhongal. After acquisition of the lands, respondent No.1
awarded the compensation of Rs.60,095/-, Rs.2,47,450/- and
Rs.84,840/- respectively and issued award notices and after
receipt of award notices, the petitioners have received the
amount with protest and also filed applications under Section
18(1) of the L.A. Act, for enhancement on 02.05.2012,
27.08.2012 and 24.08.2012 respectively, contending that lands
acquired are non-agricultural lands and it is adjoining to
Bailhonga town. At the time of issuance of notification under
Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, the market value of acquired
property bearing Sy. No.125/A2 was more than Rs.5,00,000/-
per gunta. The appellants also contended that they were
cultivating the property and growing cotton crops i.e., 20
quintals yield per year / sugar cane 150 tons yield per acre per
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
year. They also installed pipeline by investing huge amount and
thereby they were drawing water supply through bore wells and
thus, annual income of the land was Rs.2,00,000/- per year
excluding all other expenses. Therefore, compensation awarded
by the Reference Court is too low, nominal and it is
proportionate to the existing market value of the land and
inadequate and confiscatory in nature.
5. The petitioners have also relied upon the earlier
award passed in L.A.C. No.128/2001 and copy of sale deed
dated 21.03.2012 and submitted that respondent No.1 has not
considered the same and the award passed is arbitrary and
unjust and prayed to enhance the compensation.
6. After receipt of the records from respondent No.1
and in pursuance of the notice issued by the Reference Court,
petitioners and respondents appeared through their counsel.
7. Respondent No.1 filed his objections statement
strongly opposing claim petitions contending that respondent
No.1 has passed these awards by considering all the relevant
factors and the market value fixed by respondent No.1 is in
accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and that
the petitioners filed reference application under Section 18(1)
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
of the L.A. Act are barred by limitation and prayed to dismiss
the same.
8. In order to prove their case, petitioners in their
cases examined themselves as P.W.1 respectively and got
marked Exs.P1 to P15, Exs.P1 to 16, Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and on
the other hand, one Shivappa Gireppa Ambiger examined as
R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.
9. The Reference Court, on the basis of the rival
contentions, has framed necessary points for its consideration
and after hearing both the parties and considering the oral and
documentary evidence and other materials available on record,
has partly allowed the petitions and fixed the market value of
the lands in question at Rs.31,000/- per gunta, Rs.12,40,000/-
per acre and Rs.31,000/- per gunta respectively alongwith all
other statutory benefits in all the petitions.
10. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have
preferred these appeals seeking further enhancement
contending that the Reference Court has failed to consider the
NA Potentiality of the acquired land which is situated within the
limits of town (TMC) Bailhongal, near to the bypass road, Cattle
market of APMC Mills and so also surrounded by housing
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
colonies etc. Hence, the determination of the market value by
the Reference Court is at meager side and unreasonable though
the acquired land is being treated as having NA Potentiality. It
is further contended that the Reference Court has failed to
consider the sale deeds i.e., Exs.P7 to P10 which clearly
indicates the compensation amount determined by the
Reference Court is inadequate and unreasonable. The sale
transaction taken under Ex.P9 in respect of 9 guntas of land
was sold for Rs.3,53,000/- on 26.04.2010 and as such, the
Reference Court has failed to apply its mind to determine the
fair compensation amount entitled by the appellants. As per the
Ex.P9 the market value of the acquired lands would be
Rs.39,222/- per gunta and also entitled for 12% escalation per
annum on the acquired lands since the acquired lands under
Ex.P9 is in the year 2010. Hence, the Reference Court has
failed to award fair compensation entitled by the appellants.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants further
contended that the Reference Court has committed a mistake
in determining the market value based on the earlier decision
rendered in L.A.C. No.128/2001 (Ex.P10) and same was
confirmed in M.F.A. No.503/2005 (Ex.P12). The Reference
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
Court has failed to notice the acquired land was an agricultural
land in the year 2011 and under L.A.C. No.128/2001 land has
been acquired in the year 1999 and determined the
compensation amount fixing market value at the rate of
Rs.31,000/- per gunta after having adding 5% appreciation and
deducted 53% towards cultivation charges. The Reference
Court has failed to apply its mind the acquired land in the
appeal was 2011 and value of land is raised to 20 times than
the market value determined in L.A.C. No.128/2001. Hence,
the market value as well as 5% escalation in fixing the market
value at the rate of Rs.31,000/- per gunta is unfair and
unreasonable which requires to be determined as per the sale
transaction taken place as on the date of notification issued
under 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by Respondent No.1.
Hence, the Reference Court ought to have been dealt with the
matter independently rather than relying on the earlier decision
rendered in L.A.C. No. 128/2001. Lastly the counsel for the
appellants contended that the acquisition of the lands was for
the purpose of sewage treatment in the town limits of
Bailhongal and the surrounding lands were fully developed with
government offices and commercial buildings, and therefore, no
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
deductions are permissible and hence, the lands in question are
highly potential and thus, seek for enhancement of the
compensation.
12. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and the learned HCGP for
respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
contended and tried to demonstrate that in M.F.A.
No.103995/2022 in all 17 guntas were acquired in Sy.
No.125/A2, in M..F.A. No.103994/2022, in all 1 acre 30 guntas
of land were acquired in Sy. No.127/1 and in M.F.A.
No.104475/2022 in all 24 guntas of land were acquired in Sy.
No.126/2 for the purpose of sewage treatment within the limits
of Bailhongal Town Municipal Corporation. Initially the Special
Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.1,01,000/- per
acre and it was enhanced to a sum of Rs.12,40,000/- per acre
(Rs.31,000/- per gunta by the Reference Court). The counsel
further contended that as per Ex.P9, the sale deed dated
26.04.2010, the transaction taken place in respect of 9 guntas
of similarly placed land was for Rs.3,53,000/-, which comes to
Rs.39,222/- per gunta and 12% escalation per annum on the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
acquired lands. Therefore, the Reference Court without
appreciating the contents of Ex.P9, wrongly appreciated the
contents of Ex.P10, P12 which pertains to the lands acquired in
the year 1999 has proceeded to grant meager compensation of
Rs.31,000/- per gunta which is unfair and unreasonable. In
fact, the Reference Court ought to have taken the
considerations of contents of Ex.P9.
14. Learned HCGP submits that the Reference Court has
determined the market value of the acquired land with
reference to the acquisition and has given an appreciation of
5% per annum and has arrived at a sum of Rs.31,000/- per
gunta. Therefore, he submits that there is no need to enhance
the market value of the land acquired.
15. The perusal of the records disclose that the land in
question are agricultural lands situated within the Municipal
limits of Bailhongal, are having similar features of NA
potentiality. As per Ex.P1 - preliminary notification, Ex.P3 -
letter of TMC, Bailongal, Exs.P4 to P6 - RTC extracts, Exs.P7 to
P10 - copy of sale deeds, it appears that these lands were
acquired for sewage treatment within the limits of Bailongal
Municipality. Therefore, the proximity of lands acquired shows
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
that these lands were acquired for the aforesaid project having
more potentiality. The preliminary notification for the
acquisition was made on 07.04.2011 and final award was
passed on 09.02.2012 and the valuation made by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.1,01,000/- per acre and it was
enhanced by Reference Court to a sum of Rs.12,40,000/- per
acre on account of various considerations which may be found
therein. It is also evident that those lands were situated within
the limits of Bailhongal Municipality.
16. The perusal of the impugned award by the
Reference Court shows that it did not consider the proximity of
the lands acquired, but it held that the subject lands shown in
Exs.P10 and P12 are similarly placed lands, those lands were
acquired in the year 1999, but it has not considered Ex.P9
which was acquired in the year 2010. In fact, under Ex.P9, the
market value of the acquired land is Rs.39,222/- per gunta with
12% escalation per annum. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 is
not properly appreciated by the Reference Court. The Reference
Court has chosen to consider the compensation awarded in
L.A.C. No.128/2001 which is at Ex.P10, pertaining to a
preliminary notification held in the year 1999 and concluded
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
that it is almost similar to the purpose of acquisition in the
present cases and the lands acquired are situated within the
limits of Bailhongal Municipality. The Reference Court ought to
have considered Ex.P9, pertaining to preliminary notification
held in the year 2010 and concluded that it is almost similar to
the purpose of acquisition and the lands acquired are situated
in the same locality. It squarely dependant on the said award
and determined the market value at Rs.36,500/- per gunta
(Rs.20,000 X 7.5% X 11 + 20,000).
17. A perusal of Ex.P1 shows that the acquisition was
made for the purpose of sewage treatment at Bailhongal Town
Municipality by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act dated 07.04.2011 followed by a
notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act dated 04.11.2011. The acquisition was made in the year
2011 and present cases are filed in the year 2012. The
Reference Court by referring previous judgment in L.A.C.
No.128/2001 which was confirmed in M.F.A. No.503/2005,
proceeded to award compensation of Rs.31,000/- per gunta
i.e., Rs.12,40,000/- per acre. The subject lands in L.A.C.
No.128/2001 were acquired in the year 1999 and in the present
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
case, the lands in question were acquired in the year 2011.
Therefore, the Reference Court ought not to have been dealt
with the matter relying upon L.A.C. No.128/2001, rather it
would independently decide the matter based on the material
available on record.
18. In similar circumstances, in the case of Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan District Badaun vs.
Bipin Kumar and another1, the Hon'ble Apex Court
determined the market value in the year 2002 to be
Rs.37,332/- and awarded the compensation. The same market
value was adopted by the Reference Court even though the
acquisition was made in 2007.
19. It is relevant to note that the decision in the case of
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti lays down that the appreciation
of the land value has to be made on the basis of the
potentiality, its proximity, etc., of the acquired land. In that
case, the Apex Court had given a price appreciation of 15%.
When the lands were acquired in 2002, the Reference Court in
L.A.C. No.306/2006 and connected matters considered a price
1
(2004) 2 SCC 283
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
appreciation of 10% and fixed the market value at Rs.37,332/-
per gunta.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in The General Manager,
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai
Jivanbhai Patel and another2 at paragraphs 14 and 15 has
held as under:
"14. In this case, the acquisition was in a
rural area. There was no evidence of any out-of-
ordinary developments or increases in prices in the
area. We are of the view that providing an escalation
of 7.5% per annum over the 1987 price under Ex.15,
would be sufficient and appropriate to arrive at the
market value of acquired lands. Whether the increase
should be at a cumulative rate or a flat rate?
15. The increase in market value is calculated
with reference to the market value during the
immediate preceding year. When market value is
sought to be ascertained with reference to a
transaction which took place some years before the
2
(2008) 14 SCC 745
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the
year to year increase. As the percentage of increase
is always with reference to the previous year's
market value, the appropriate method is to calculate
the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate.
The difference between the two methods is shown by
the following illustration (with reference to a 10%
increase over a basic price of Rs.10/- per sq.m.):
Year By flat rate increase method By
cumulative increase method 1987 10.00 10.00 (Base
Year) 1988 10 + 1= 11.00 10.00 + 1.00 = 11.00
1989 11 + 1= 12.00 11.00 + 1.10= 12.10 1990 12 +
1= 13.00 12.10 + 1.21= 13.31 1991 13 + 1= 14.00
13.31 + 1.33 = 14.64 1992 14 + 1= 15.00 14.64 +
1.46 = 16.10."
21. On a careful assessment of the available evidence
on record, the Court is of the view that the determination of the
market value in L.A.C Nos.128/2001 being the acquisition of
the year 1999 would be of no relevancy to this case.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
22. The details of agricultural land acquired for the
purpose of sewage treatment plant in town limits of Bailhongal
land situated at city limit of Bailhongal Taluk, Belagavi District
is as follows:
SLAO award
M.F.A. L.A.C. Extent & Preliminary Ref. Court
date and
Nos. Nos. Sy. No. notification Award
amount
Rs.12,40,000/-
17 gunta, 09.02.2012
103995 per acre
251/12 Sy. 07.04.2011 Rs.1,01,000/-
of 2022 (Rs.31,000/-
No.125/A2 per acre
per gunta)
1 acre 30 Rs.12,40,000/-
09.02.2012
103994 guntas per acre
270/12 07.04.2011 Rs.1,01,000/-
of 2022 Sy. (Rs.31,000/-
per acre
No.127/1 per gunta)
Rs.12,40,000/-
24 guntas 09.02.2012
104457 per acre
271/12 Sy. 07.04.2011 Rs.1,01,000/-
of 2022 (Rs.31,000/-
No.126/2 per acre
per gunta)
23. It is necessary to note that the Reference Court
followed the market value fixed in L.A.C. No.128/2001 which
was concerning the acquisition of the year 1999. It did not
consider the appreciation in the price from 1999 to 2011.
Hence, there is no dispute that the acquisition was for the
purpose of sewage treatment plant in Bailhongal Municipality
Limits. From the year 2001 to 2011, the price appreciation has
to be taken into consideration owing to the fact that the
sewage treatment project was undertaken within the limits of
Bailhongal Municipality. Hence, considering the ratio laid down
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
MFA No.103995 of 2022
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti case, Ramrao Shankar
Tapase vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation and others3 and judgment of co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in M.F.A. No.100945/2014 dated 07.12.2022
and the ratio laid down in the case of The General Manager,
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, it is just and
necessary to enhance the market value of the acquired
property to 7.5% and as such, the market value of the acquired
property is held to be Rs.36,500/- per gunta (Rs.20,000 X
7.5% X 11 + 20,000). Therefore, in view of the discussions
made supra, the appeals deserve to be allowed in part.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeals are allowed in part. The compensation
awarded by the Reference Court at Rs.31,000/- per gunta is
enhanced to Rs.36,500/- per gunta.
The appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate
of Rs.36,500/- per gunta in respect of the acquired lands and
they are also entitled for all statutory benefits, cost including
(2022) 7 SCC 563
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9202
C/W MFA No.103994 of 2022,
MFA NO.104457 of 2022
solatium, additional market value and the interest, but
excluding the period of delay, if any, in filing these appeals.
The appellants shall make good deficit Court fee, if any,
within four weeks from the date of this judgment. The
impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
in all the appeals are modified to that extent.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSH/ct-an
