Karnataka High Court

Shri.Ningappa Basavantappa ... vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26 July, 2024

Author: S.G. Pandit

Bench: S.G. Pandit

                                         -1-
                                                   MFA No.100047/2016


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                       DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                      PRESENT

                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

                                         AND

                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100047 OF 2016 (LAC)

                 BETWEEN:

                      SHRI NINGAPPA BASAVANTHAPPA NEELANNAVAR,
                      SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,

                 1.   SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA DONKANAVAR,
                      AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                      R/O:AMARGOL, TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.

                 2.   SMT. BASAVVA W/O. NINGAPPA YARAHAKKAL,
                      AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                      R/O:MANASUR, TQ:DHARWAD, DIST:DHARWAD.

                 3.   SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPA SAVATIKAI,
                      AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed      R/O:TIMMASAGAR, TQ:HUBBALLI,
by VINAYAKA B V
                      DIST:DHARWAD.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA        4.   SMT. GIRIJAVVA W/O. SHIVAKALLAPPA RAYAKOPPA,
                      AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                      R/O:HULAKOPPA, TQ:KALAGHATAGI,
                      DIST:DHARWAD.

                 5.   SHRI SIDDAPPA NINGAPPA NEELANNAVAR,
                      AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                      R/O. SHANTINIKETAN MAILARLINGESHWAR NAGAR,
                      OPP.A.P.M.C., HUBBALLI, TQ:HUBALI,
                      DIST: DHARWAD.

                 6.   SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. DEVENDRAPPA NEELANNAVAR,
                      AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: MILK VENDOR,
                            -2-
                                     MFA No.100047/2016


       R/O: SHANTINIKETAN, MAILARLINGESHWAR NAGAR,
       OPP. A.P.M.C. HUBALI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

7.     SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O. DEVENDRAPPA NEELANNAVAR,
       AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
       R/O: SHANTINIKETAN, MAILARLINGESHWAR NAGAR,
       OPP. A.P.M.C. HUBALI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.

8.     PRAVEEN DEVENDRAPPA NEELANNAVAR,
       AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
       R/O: SHANTINIKETAN, MAILARLINGESHWAR NAGAR,
       OPP. A.P.M.C. HUBALI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.

9.     SMT. SAVITRI W/O. MARUTI HULIGOL,
       AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
       R/O: SHANTINIKETAN, MAILARLINGESHWAR NAGAR,
       OPP. A.P.M.C. HUBALI, TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD
                                             ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.L. PATIL AND SRI B.D. HEGDE, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     HUBBALLI-DHARWAD URBAN
     DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
     NAVANAGAR, HUBALI.

2.   THE COMMISSIONER,
     HUBBALLI-DHARWAD
     DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
     NAVANAGAR, HUBALI.

3.   SMT. GOURAWWA KOM. SOMANAGOUDA PATIL,
     AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE HOLD WORK,
     R/O:AMARAGOL, TQ:HUBALI.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION, 1894, PLEASE TO,
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.07.2015 PASSED BY THE
                               -3-
                                         MFA No.100047/2016


2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUBBALLI,
IN L.A.C. NO.5/2012 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
AMOUNT FROM RS.28.20 PER SQ.FT. TO RS.166/- PER SQ.FT.
WITH ALL THE LEGAL BENEFITS INCLUDING THE INTEREST
ACCRUED THEREON IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
AND ETC.,


     IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, ARGUMENTS
HAVING BEEN HEARD, JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 25.07.2024
AND COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS
DAY, BASAVARAJA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
       AND
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA

                      CAV JUDGMENT

(PER HON'BLE JUSTICE BASAVARAJA)

1. Appellant/landlosers have preferred this appeal against

the judgment and award dated 27th July, 2015 passed in LAC

No.5 of 2012 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Hubballi (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Reference

Court"), seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal

are referred to with their rank and status before the Reference

Court.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that

the claimants had filed application under Section 18(1) of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking reference for determination

of actual market value of the property, as the award passed by

the Special Land Acquisition Officer was meager in respect of

survey No.312/2 measuring 7 acre 24 guntas situate at

Bhairidevarakoppa which was acquired by the respondent vide

notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban

Development Authorities Act, 1987. Upon reference, the

Reference Court registered the case in LAC No.5 of 2012. The

prove the case of claimants, seven witnesses were examined as

PWs.1 to 7 and 84 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to

P84. On closure of claimants' side evidence, respondents have

adduced evidence of RW1 and one document was marked as

Exhibit R1. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

Reference Court has determined the market value of the

property at Rs.28.20 per sq.ft. with all statutory benefits

excluding phot kharab area, if any, and giving deduction of

one-fourth of the amount awarded towards developmental

charges. Being not satisfied with the award passed by the

Reference Court, the Claimant/appellants have preferred this

appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for appellant-

claimants, submitted that the impugned judgment and award

passed by the Reference Court is contrary to law, facts and

evidence on record. He submitted that the Reference Court

while awarding the compensation has rightly held that the lands

in question are surrounded by fully developed areas under

Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation and are having

commercial establishments surrounding the land. The

Reference Court has relied only on the contention/objection

raised by the respondents without any supporting document.

This being the fact, the Reference Court, while determining the

market value of the land based on capitalization method, has

not relied on Exhibit P6-Sale deed dated 17th August, 2004 in

which the land belonging to the same locality was sold at

Rs.267/- per square feet and another sale deed dated 02nd

August 2004 wherein the land in the said sale deed was sold at

Rs.166/- per square feet. Without assigning any cogent reason

for fixing the amount at Rs.28.20 per square feet by the

Reference Court, is a gross under-valuation in the face of

overwhelming evidence on record. The appellants have not left

any stone unturned to exhaustively adduce evidence to show

that the land is having precious potentiality for all time to

come; and evidence on record of total 84 Exhibits is more than

enough to substantiate the marketability as also the

potentiality of the land. He further submitted that Exhibit P16

is a Revised Comprehensive Development Plan, which is

confirmed with the evidence of PW7, who is none other than

the Member/Engineer of Hubballi Urban Development Authority.

Further, the evidence of PW6-Sub Registrar is the authentic

piece of evidence on market value of the property at Exhibit

P83 which is the Gazette Notification dated 04th November,

2004, even as per which, the market rate of the property in the

area is not less than Rs.190/- per square feet. The evidence

of PWs.1 to 7 with supporting documents at Exhibits P1 to P84

required detailed appreciation of evidence which has not been

done by Reference Court. He further submits that the

Reference Court has failed to arrive at the average market

value as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

NIRMAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR

reported in 2014 AIR (Civil-1053) wherein the guidelines issued

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were required to be followed.

He further submits that positive and negative factors in

appreciating the valuation of land, was not considered by the

Reference Court. The direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

that a land having non-agriculture potentiality should be given

escalation in awarding compensation has not been considered

by the Reference Court. He further submits that even in the

event of de-escalation of compensation, considering the fact

that the land was acquired on 28th February, 2002, as per the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 AIR

SCW 73, which incidentally is from Karnataka, the lands in

question would definitely fetch a market value at Rs.166/- per

square feet as per Sale Deeds produced at Exhibits P6, P7 and

P83. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal. To

buttress his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ

KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

reported in (2018)13 SCC 96; and in the case of

CHANDRASHEKAR (D) BY HIS LRS AND OTHERS v. LAND

ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER reported in 2012 ACR

SCW 73; and in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. PREMLATA

reported in AIR ONLINE SC 465.

5. As against this, Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned

Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri R.H. Angadi,

learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2-HDMC

submitted that the Reference Court has properly appreciated

the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts which

does not call for any interference and hence, sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

6. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal

of appeal papers and original records, the following points

would arise for our consideration:

1. Whether the Reference Court is justified in coming to the conclusion with regard to N.A. potentiality of the land in question?

2. Whether the claimants/appellants would be entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?

3. Whether the impugned judgment and aware requires interference by this Court?

4. What Order or award?

Our answer to the above points is as under:

        Point No.1                     :         Affirmative;

        Point No.2 and 3               :         partly in the affirmative;

        Point No.4                     :         as per final order.


Regarding Point No.1:

7. It is not in dispute that the respondents acquired the

land of the appellant/claimants in Survey No.312/2 measuring

7 acre 24 guntas of Bairidevarakoppa vide Notification issued

under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development

Authorities Act, 1987. It is also not in dispute that the Special

Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at

Rs.77,056/- per acre. Further it is not in dispute that the

claimants sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, to the Reference Court for determination

of actual market value of the property. To substantiate the

case of the claimants, seven witnesses were examined as

PWs.1 to 7 and 84 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to

P84. The respondent has not filed any written objection to the

Reference Petition, however, adduced the evidence of RW1 and

marked one document as Exhibit R1, i.e. the Order dated 07th

January, 2015. The claimants have pleaded in their petition

that the acquired land is situated between Hubli-Dharwad and

is abutting National Highway-4 and is a fully developed area

surrounded by Residential Layouts, Educational Institutions

consisting of Law, Technical Education, Degree Colleges and

School of Master of Business Administration; Agriculture

Produce Marketing Yard; Office of the Hubli-Dharwad Urban

Development Authority; Office of the Commissioner of Police

and other Government Offices; Tarihal Industrial Area,

Dharmasthala Manjunatha Medical and Dental Colleges, etc.

and hence the land has non-agriculture potentiality. On all

these grounds, sought for enhancement of compensation.

8. The claimants have examined seven witnesses as PWs1

to 7. PWs.1 to 5 who are the claimants, have clearly deposed

in their evidence that the Special Land Acquisition Officer

acquired their property for the purpose of residential layout.

The acquired lands are situated in the limits of Hubli-Dharwad

- 10 -

Municipal Corporation and comes under Hubli-Dharwad Urban

Development Authority and are abutting the National Highway

which is surrounded by fully developed residential layouts,

many educational institutions consisting of Law, Technical

education, degree colleges, School of MBA, MCA and MDA,

Government Offices, Industrial Area and SDM Medical and

Dental Colleges and showrooms, as also, service centres of

different brands of Cars, many multi-star hotels and ISKCON

temple. They have deposed that the minimum market value of

the acquired land is Rs.250/- per square feet and maximum is

Rs.950/- per square feet and the approximate market value of

the acquired lands would be not less than Rs.2,50,000/- to

Rs.25.00 lakh per gunta. It is also deposed that there are

three country tiled houses worth Rs.2.00 lakh each and a cow-

shed in an area of 80 x 50 sq.ft in the acquired land. Further,

there are 12 coconut trees, two tamarind trees in the acquired

land and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not considered

these factors at the time of passing the award. It is also

deposed that the acquired land has got non-agriculture

potentiality.

9. PW6-Govind Parameshwar Naik, Senior Sub-Registrar,

South Hubli has deposed as to the Gazette Notification issued

by the Government of Karnataka as per Exhibit P83 and he has

- 11 -

also deposed that he has issued Exhibits P5 to P7 Certified

Copies of sale-deeds.

10. PW7-S. Gopalakrishna, the Member of Hubli-Dharwad

Urban Development Authority has deposed in his evidence that

Exhibit P16 is the Hubli-Dharwad Revised Comprehensive

Development Plan. Survey No.312 is already developed property

which shown in Exhibit P16 and the lands situated towards

northern side of Survey No.318 are also developed property.

11. Along with their oral evidence, the claimants have also

produced documentary evidence which are marked as Exhibits

P1 to P84. Exhibits P1 to P3 are RTCs; Exhibits P4 and P5 are

lease-cum-sale deeds; Exhibits P6 and P7 are sale deeds;

Exhibit P8 is the Service Certificate; Exhibit P9 to P11 are

receipts; Exhibit P12 is the demand challan; Exhibit P13 is the

verification letter; Exhibits P14 and P15 are receipts; Exhibit

P16 is the revised Comprehensive Development Plan; Exhibits

P17 to P41 are photographs and photo receipt; Exhibit P42 is

the decree in Regular Appeal No.286 of 2010; Exhibit P43 is the

judgment in Misc.28 of 2009; Exhibit P44 is the letter; Exhibit

P45 is the income certificate; Exhibit P47 to P38 are

photographs; Exhibit P81 is the Compact Disc; Exhibit P82 is

the receipt; Exhibit P83 is the Notification dated 04th

- 12 -

November, 2004; and Exhibit P84 is the copy of the General

award dated 31st Jan 2005, passed by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer, Hubli-Dharwad Development Authority,

Hubballi.

12. Respondents have adduced the evidence of Bandurao

S. Kulkarni, the Mangaer of Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

Authority, Hubballi. He has deposed in his evidence that the

Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined the market

value of the land at Rs.77,056/- per acre and at the time of

acquisition of the land in question there were no buildings,

trees or wells existed in the land. The record of rights do not

show existence of any such things in the acquired land and the

petitioners have claimed excess amount, which is not

permissible in the eye of law.

13. Considering all these oral and documentary evidence,

the reference Court has held that the petitioners/claimants

succeed in proving that the acquired land has Non-agriculture

potentiality. This finding given by the Reference Court has not

been challenged by the respondents. However, on re-

appreciation of the evidence on record, we do not find any

error/infirmity in the finding given by the Reference Court.

Hence, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

- 13 -

Regarding Point No.2 and 3 :

14. Now we have to appreciate the evidence on record as

to the actual market value of the property. The Reference

Court has awarded the compensation of Rs.28.20 per square

feet on the basis of the copy of the award dated 01st April,

2008 produced by the respondent in LAC No.18 of 2005

pertaining to Survey No.318/1. In view of this award, the

Reference Court has awarded the compensation at Rs.28.20 per

sq.ft. to the land bearing Survey No.318/1 measuring 1 acre 22

guntas of Bhairidevarakoppa. This copy of the award does not

reveal as to the date of preliminary notification under Section

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also the documents

relied upon by the Reference Court. The award itself reveals

that the Reference Court has awarded compensation at

Rs.28.20 per sq.ft. Whereas the Reference Court has awarded

the compensation of Rs.28.20 per sq.ft. and out of that

deducting one-fourth towards development charges. The

Reference Court has not explained anything in this regard.

Therefore, only on the basis of the copy of the award which is

not marked and subjected to cross-examination the Reference

Court has awarded the compensation. Without documents and

other exhibits, it is not safe to determine the market value of

the property on the basis of the just a copy of the award

- 14 -

passed in LAC 18 of 2005. Accordingly, the Reference Court

has committed an error in determining the compensation at

Rs.28.20 per sq.ft. by giving deduction of one-fourth of the

amount towards development charges. Hence, the same is not

accepted.

15. The claimants have produced the certified copies of the

sale-deeds as Exhibits P4 to P7. Exhibit P4 is the lease-cum-

sale deed dated 21st May 2004 which pertains to the Block

No.282/C of Bhairidevarakoppa, Hubli Taluk pertaining to

Shantiniketan Layout on National Highway-4 on Hubli-Dharwad

Road which reveals that Survey No.312 and 313 are situated

towards Southern side of this land. In this document, the land

cost is shown as Rs.1,00,000/-, development cost

Rs.3,99,500/- and lease-cum-sale amount Rs.500/- and the

total consideration is Rs.5,00,000/- excluding stamp duty for 2

gunta 3¼ annas in plot No.16 of 282C Block of

Bhairidevarakoppa.

16. Exhibit P5 is the lease-cum-sale deed dated 18th

August, 2004 which pertains to site No.251 of Block 282C of

Bhairidevarakoppa, Hubli Taluk in the layout formed as

Shantiniketan Layout on National Highway-4 and the schedule

of the said document discloses that Plot No.252 is situated on

- 15 -

the southern side of this Site measuring one gunta 14½ anna.

The sale consideration of this site is shown as Land Cost

Rs.46,000/-, Development Cost Rs.1,84,500/- and Lease-cum-

sale amount Rs.500/- excluding the stamp duty and the total

consideration is Rs.2,31,000/-.

17. Exhibit P6 is the sale deed dated 17th August, 2004

pertaining to plot No.123 Survey No.602+604A measuring 1

gunta 15.5 anna situated at Unakal village and sold for the

consideration of Rs.3,21,500/-.

18. Exhibit P7 is the sale deed dated 02nd August, 2004

pertaining to Site No.152 comprised and carved out of

Residential layout I Survey No.545, 551B, 552 and 561 situated

at Unakal village, Hubli Taluk sold for sale consideration of

Rs.4,00,000/- lakh. The Reference Court has rightly observed

that these sale deeds are not relating to the date on which the

notification was issued to acquire these lands and these sale

transactions are relating to the period two years subsequent to

the issuance of Preliminary Notification and therefore, the sale

consideration amount mentioned in these documents cannot be

considered for determination of market value of the lands

under reference.

- 16 -

19. The learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted

that Exhibit P83 which is the revision of market value guidelines

of immoveable property and buildings in the jurisdiction of

Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District issued by the Department of

Registration and Stamps vide Notification dated 31st August,

2004, reveals that the value fixed for residential sites is shown

as Rs.105/- per square feet and Rs.170/- per square feet for

commercial sites of Bhairidevarakoppa and based on this

market value, this Court can de-escalate the market price at

10% per acre for three years and deduct 40% towards

development charges in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of PREMLATA (supra) and

accordingly, sought for modification of the award passed by the

Reference Court.

20. The learned counsel for the respondent has not

disputed the arguments advanced on behalf of the claimants,

however, he would support the judgment and award passed by

the Reference Court.

21. Keeping in mind the arguments advanced by both

the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have to

examine the evidence placed before this Court.

- 17 -

22. Exhibit P83 is the revision of market value guidelines

of immoveable properties and buildings in the jurisdiction of

Hubli-Dharwad District issued by the Department of

Registration and Stamps made in No.CVC/RGN:3/2003-04

dated 31st August, 2004 in which it is shown that

Bhairidevarakoppa Blocks 1 to 37, 19, 258, 259, 260, 261, 280,

33, 338, 405, 464, 475, 476, 484, 495, 498, 500 and the

market price of residential site is shown as Rs.105/- per square

feet and at Rs.170/- per square feet for commercial sites. To

prove this document, the petitioners have examined the Senior

Sub-Registrar Sri Govind Parameshwar Naik as PW6, who has

deposed in his evidence that the issuance of gazette notification

by Government of Karnataka as per Exhibit P3. He has also

deposed as to the market price of vacant residential sites and

vacant commercial sites of Bhairidevarakoppa, which is marked

as Exhibit P83(a).

23. It is not in dispute that as per Notification Exhibit

P84, the Urban Development Authority has drawn-up the

notification stating that the factum of scheme have been made

and the limits of area comprised therein under Section 17(1) of

the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 on 27th

July, 2001 and the Karnataka Land Development Authority

caused a copy of the notification under sub-Section (3) of

- 18 -

Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act

on 28th February, 2002. Considering the date of above

notification, we are of the view that it is appropriate to de-

escalate the market value of the vacant site of

Bhairidevarakoppa fixed at Rs.105/- per sq.feet at the rate of

10% for three years which comes to 30%. Upon de-escalation

at 30%, the amount comes to Rs.73.50 per sq.feet which is

rounded off to Rs.74/- per sq.ft. Applying the principle laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PREMLATA

(supra) and considering the facts and circumstances of the case

on hand, as already stated, if 40% deduction is ordered to be

made towards development charges, the same would be said to

be appropriate deduction and accordingly, if 40% is deducted

from the price of Rs.74/- per square feet now determined, the

same comes to Rs.44.40, which is rounded off to 44/- per

square feet. Accordingly, claimants are entitled for

compensation with all statutory benefits. For the aforesaid

reasons the impugned judgment and award requires to be

interfered with by this court. Hence, we answer Point No.2 and

3 partly in the affirmative.

- 19 -

Regarding Point No.4:

24. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, we

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. Appeal is allowed in part with costs;

2. Judgment and award dated 27th July, 2015 passed in LAC No.5 of 2012 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli is modified holding that the appellants are entitled for compensation at Rs.44/- per square feet with all statutory benefits under Section 23(2), 23(1-A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894;