Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Kurubara Eranna S/O. Shri Nagadevappa on 13 August, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
M.F.A NO.101519 OF 2014 (LAC)
C/W. M.F.A. NO.101516 OF 2014 (LAC)
M.F.A. NO.101517 OF 2014 (LAC)
M.F.A. NO.101518 OF 2014 (LAC)
M.F.A. CROB NO.100035 OF 2015 (LAC)
M.F.A. CROB NO.100036 OF 2015 (LAC)
M.F.A. CROB NO.100037 OF 2015 (LAC)
IN MFA NO.101519/2014
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
1. N. V. GIRI BABU S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO,
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
R/O. MUNDARAGI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BELLARY,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1A. SUDHARANI W/O. LATE. N. V. GIRI BABU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUNDARAGI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. BELLARY.
1B. SRI. RAKSHIT S/O. LATE N. V. GIRI BABU,
AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUNDARAGI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. BELLARY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
1C. SRI. SAISEETARAM S/O. LATE. N. V. GIRI BABU,
AGE 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUNDARAGI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY
AT BELLARY, IN LAC NO.4/2010, AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE
REFERENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA NO.101516/2014
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
V. BHOJARAJ S/O. V. GANGAMMA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY
AT BELLARY, IN LAC NO.5/2010, AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE
REFERENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
IN MFA NO.101517/2014
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
P. SURESH BABU S/O. LATE SRI. SATHYANARAYANA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY
AT BELLARY, IN LAC NO.2/2010, AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE
REFERENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA NO.101518 OF 2014
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
KURUBARA ERANNA S/O. SHRI. NAGADEVAPPA,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY
AT BELLARY, IN LAC NO.3/2010, AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE
REFERENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA CROB NO.100035/2015
BETWEEN
V. BHOJARAJ S/O. SMT. V. GANGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BALLARI.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
CUM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BALLARI,
BALLARI REVENUE SUB DIVISION, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB FILED IN MFA NO.101516/2014 IS FILED
U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM RS.11,00,000/-
(ELEVEN LAKHS RUPEES) TO RS.15,10,000/- (FIFTEEN LAKH TEN
THOUSAND) PER ACRE WITH STATUTORY BENEFITS IN LAC
NO.5/2010 DATED 26.04.2013 BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY AT BELLARY AND ETC.
IN MFA CROB NO 100036 OF 2015
BETWEEN
P. SURESH BABU
S/O. LATE SRI. SATHYANARAYANA,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BALLARI.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
RESPONDENT
(SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB FILED IN MFA NO.101517/2014 IS FILED
U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM RS.11,00,000/-
(ELEVEN LAKHS RUPEES) TO RS.15,10,000/- (FIFTEEN LAKH TEN
THOUSAND) PER ACRE WITH STATUTORY BENEFITS, IN LAC
NO.2/2010 DATED 26.04.2013 BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY AT BELLARY AND ETC.
IN MFA CROB NO.100037/2015
BETWEEN
KURUBARA ERANNA S/O. NAGADEWAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BELLARY.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELLARY
REVENUE SUB DIVISION, BELLARY-583101
RESPONDENT
(SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB FILED IN MFA NO.101518/2014 IS FILED
U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM RS.11,00,000/-
(ELEVEN LAKHS RUPEES) TO RS.15,10,000/- (FIFTEEN LAKH TEN
THOUSAND) PER ACRE WITH STATUTORY BENEFITS.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
MFA No. 101519 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101516 of 2014
MFA No. 101517 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
THESE APPEALS AND CROB PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 05.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
These appeals and cross objections are preferred by
the KIADB and the claimants respectively being aggrieved
by the common judgment and award dated 26.04.2013
passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bellary
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court' for short).
The particulars are as under:
Sl.No. LAC.No. MFA FILED CROB FILED BY
BY KIADB CLAIMANTS
1. 4/2010 101519/2014 ------
2. The parties henceforth are referred to as per
their ranking before the Reference Court for the purpose of
convenience. The land loosers are referred to the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
claimants and the beneficiary from acquisition is referred
to as KIADB.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals and
cross objections are that the State Government issued
preliminary notification on 24.04.2005 to acquire various
extents of lands including the lands of the claimants for
establishment of industrial area. The Land Acquisition
Officer passed an award determining the market value of
the lands at Rs.41,300/- per acre. The Reference Court
enhanced the same under the impugned judgment dated
26.04.2013 at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved,
the KIADB has filed these appeals and the claimants have
filed the cross objections.
4. Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for
the claimants submits that the Reference Court committed
grave error in determining the market value of the lands in
question at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre by ignoring the oral
and documentary evidence on record. It is submitted that
the location of the acquired lands is within the developed
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
area as is evident from the Court Commissioner's report at
Ex.C.1 and the sketch at Ex.C.2. However, the Reference
Court has not considered the said evidence. It is further
submitted that the acquired lands are situated next to the
existing industrial area formed by the KIADB and the
acquired lands are within 1 Km from Bellary - Bangalore
Highway. The Reference Court ignored Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.25
the Yield Certificates issued by the Horticulture
Department which indicate that the crops grown in the
acquired lands are commercial crops having high yield and
the trees standing in the acquired lands are the fruit
bearing trees and the Reference Court ought to have
considered the same and awarded higher compensation. It
is also submitted that if the evidence on record is
considered, the claimants are entitled at least Rs.14 to
Rs.15 Lakhs per acre as compensation with all statutory
benefits. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeals filed by the
claimants.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
5. Sri.Gurudev I.Gachchinamath, learned counsel
appearing for the KIADB submits that the claimants have
failed to prove the correct market value of the acquired
lands before the Reference Court. It is submitted that the
Reference Court committed an error in considering Ex.P.1-
the Sale Deed of Bellary village as the acquired lands are
from Mundargi village. It is submitted that the Reference
Court has not assigned any reasons in the impugned
judgment to arrive at the conclusion and for enhancement
of the compensation to Rs.11,00,000/- per acre. It is
submitted that the determination of market value by the
Land Acquisition Officer is based on the nature of lands
acquired and its market value as on the date of
preliminary notification and the same is required to be
confirmed by setting aside the impugned judgment and
award of the Reference Court. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance on the following judgments
of the Hon'ble Apex Court
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
*THE GENERAL MANAGER, OIL AND NATURAL GAS
LIMITED V/S RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL
AND OTHERS1
*MAYADEVI(DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ANOTHER2
*BIJENDER AND ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS3
*SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ORS. V/S
KURRA SAMBASIVA RAO AND OTHERS4
6. We have heard the submissions of the learned
counsel for the claimants, learned counsel for the KIADB
and perused the material on record including the trial
Court records. We have given our anxious consideration to
the submissions advanced. The only point that arises for
consideration in these appeals and cross objections is
whether the market value determined by the Reference
MANU/SC/7896/2008
(2018) 2 SCC 474
MANU/SC/1362/2017
MANU/SC/0690/1997
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
Court under the common impugned judgment is
sustainable in law or whether calls for further
enhancement?
7. The answer to the above point is 'affirmative'
and 'negative' for the following reasons:
(a) Before adverting to the issue involved in these
matters, we go through the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of CHIMANLAL
HARGOVINDDAS v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER POONA AND ANOTHER5 which has also been
followed by this Court in MFA.No.100255/2016 which is
extracted as under:
"4. The following factors must be etched on the mental
screen:
(1) A reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot
take into account the material relied upon by the Land
Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is
produced and proved before the Court.
1. By Certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution
of India as it existed at the material time.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not
to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or
AIR 1988 SC 1652
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the
Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land
Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for
making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless
produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the
Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or
disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm,
modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land
Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original
proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh
on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to
show that the price offered for his land in the award is
Inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the
Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the
other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be
determined as on the crucial date of publication of the
notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates
of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date
line of valuation (date of publication of notification under
Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing
to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to
pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be
assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a
reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to
correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable
Instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account.
(Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of
Acquisition of land).
(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into
account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3)
the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay
a higher price on account of the resultant improvement In
development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine
instances have to be identified on the following
considerations:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index
of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as
the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition
may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the
plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by
placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be
drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be
evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser
would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has
there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in
the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it
for minus factors
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be
undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man
of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some
such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.
2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at
a distances from the Road.
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with
very small frontage
compared to death.
4. nearness to developed 4. lower level requiring
area. the depressed portion
to be filled up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from
developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land under 6. some special
acquisition. disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser.
7. special value for an owner
of an adjoining property to
whom it may have some
very special advantage.
15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the
facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid
rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For
instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
land say 500 to 1000 sq.yds. cannot be compared with a
large tract or block of land of say 1000 sq. yds or more.
Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large
block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out,
carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller
plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money
will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The
factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an
allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between
20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for
carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting
will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area
or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and
whether waiting period during which the capital of the
entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter
and the attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern
bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of
land in which position the Judge must place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with
understanding informed with common sense."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE
GENERAL MANAGER, OIL AND NATURAL GAS LIMITED
referred supra held that the reference to the future sale
transaction, subsequent to the acquisition should be
ignored for determining the market value of the acquired
lands. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of MAYA DEVI referred supra. In the
case of BIJENDER AND ORS. referred supra the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the transaction relating to
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
acquired land of recent dates or in the neighbourhood
lands that possessed of similar potentiality or fertility or
other advantages features are considered to be relevant
piece of evidence. In the case of SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR AND ORS. referred supra the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the burden of proof is on the
land owner to prove the market value of the land in
question. Further, the Court should sit in the arm chair of
prudent willing purchaser in the open market and see
whether he would be willing to offer the same price as is
proposed to be fixed by the land acquisition officer as a
market value for the same or similar land possessed of
all the advantages or features.
(b) Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred supra now
we deal with the case on hand. The State Government
issued preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966
(hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act' for short) on
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
24.04.2005 to acquire various extents of lands including
the lands of the claimants for establishment of industrial
area. The final notification under Section 28(4) of the
KIAD Act came to issued on 28.12.2005. The Land
Acquisition Officer passed the award on 30.04.2007 by
determining the market value of the lands in question at
Rs.41,300/- per acre. The land losers sought reference
and the Reference Court under the impugned common
judgment and award enhanced the market value of the
lands in question at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre.
(c) The particulars of the lands involved in these
appeals are as under:
LAC Claimant (s) Survey Extent in MFA No.
No. No. Acres
2/2010 P. Suresh Babu 36 & 98 3.70 & 6.36 101517/2014
(d) The parties adduced evidence before the
Reference Court. The claimants examined PW.1 & PW.2
and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.26. The respondent
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
examined RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.5. The
Court Commissioner was examined as CW.1 and got
marked Exs.C.1 and C.2. The Reference Court mainly
placing reliance on Ex.P.1 - the Sale Deed, enhanced the
compensation to Rs.11,00,000/- per acre. The Reference
Court though made a reference to Exs.P.1 to P.26
considered Ex.P.1 as the basis to determine the market
value of the lands in question. The Reference Court
taking note of Exs.P.21 to P.25 held that the claimants
used to grow horticulture crops and used to generate
income ranging from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-
annually. However, those exhibits were not taken into
consideration while determining the market value of the
lands in question.
(e) The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 indicates
that the subject lands were acquired for formation of
industrial area by the KIADB and before the acquisition,
they used to grow horticulture crops those lands and it
was claimed that they used to generate income of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- annually. The evidence of
the aforesaid witnesses indicates that they have planted
pomegranate trees, drumstick trees, anjur trees,
tamarind tree, coconut tree, neem tree and based on
that, they tried to prove the income arising from the
acquired lands. However, those evidences are self
serving statements of the claimants and the Reference
Court has rightly not placed any reliance on their oral
testimonies. Ex.P.21 is the Crop Yield Certificate dated
16.01.2013 issued by the Senior Assistant Director,
Horticulture Department, Bellary which indicates that,
different fruit bearing trees would start yielding fruits
from two to three years, the coconut trees would start
yielding from four to seven years, drumstick trees would
start yielding from eight months of their plantation and
the said document does not indicate that a particular
number of trees are planted in their lands and the
approximate income for such trees. The certificate at
Ex.P.21 is the general statement of the Officer of the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
Horticulture Department to indicate as to when the
pomegranate trees, anjur trees, coconut trees and
drumstick trees would start the yield from the date of
plantation and their life span. The said exhibit cannot be
the basis to determine the market value of the lands in
question. Ex.P.22 is the photograph showing the
existence of fruit bearing trees. However, the photograph
at Ex.P.22 cannot be the basis to come to a conclusion
that the claimants were earning a particular amount per
year to determine the market value of the lands in
question. Exs.P.23 to P.25 are the valuation certificates
in respect of Survey Nos.96, 97/A and 97/B. The said
valuation certificates in respect of Survey No.96 indicate
the valuation of the trees at Rs.1,46,844/-, in respect of
the Survey No.97/B at Rs.9,78,440/- and in respect of
Survey No.97/A at Rs.7,27,194/-. The aforesaid exhibits
cannot be fully relied as the claimants have not examined
the authors of Exs.P.21, 23 to P.25. And these exhibits
cannot be the basis to determine the market value of the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
lands in question in the absence of better particulars.
Exs.P.9 to P.19 are the judgments of the Reference
Courts and this Court. A perusal of the aforesaid exhibits
would indicate that the acquisition in the aforesaid cases
is of the year 1989 for the purpose of formation of layout
by the Bellary Urban Development Authority. In our
considered view, the preliminary notification in the
aforesaid exhibits was issued on 24.08.1989 and in the
instant case the preliminary notification was issued on
24.04.2005. Hence, Exs.P.9 to P.19 cannot be basis to
determine the market value of the lands in question.
(f) The claimants produced Exs.P.1 to P.9 - the
certified copies of the sale deed of Bellary village of
different dates. The particulars of Exs.P.1 to P.7 are
extracted herein below:
P-1 Survey No. 10 1,31,000/- 13,10,000/-
Sale Deed 280/H2, in (Per Acre)
Dated Ballari Village
19.01.2005
(Pg.91)
P-2 Survey No. 16 Guideline Value Guideline Value
Sale Deed 733//B, part Rs. 1,26,000/- Rs. 7,86,700/-
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
Dated in Ballari
18.02.2005 Village 99,000/- 6,18,750/-
(Pg.93) (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
P-3 Survey No. 25 3,28,000/- 13,12,000/-
Sale Deed 235/B/1a1b (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
Dated in Ballari
21.02.2005 Village
(Pg.98)
P-4 Survey No. 10 96,000/- 9,60,000/-
Sale Deed 982B/3/a, in (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
Dated Ballari Village
07.02.2003
(Pg.101)
P-5 Survey No. 11 1,25,000/- 11,36,400/-
Sale Deed 929/A1e piki (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
Dated in Ballari
27.03.2003 Village
(Pg.104)
P-6 Survey No. 09 1,04,000/- 11,55,500/-
Sale Deed 929/A1/F, in (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
Dated Ballari Village
13.05.2003
(Pg.108)
P-7 Survey No. 03 33,000/- 11,00,000/-
Sale Deed 821/A/2, piki (Sale consideration) (Per acre)
Dated in Ballari
16.05.2003 Village
(Pg.110)
Exs.P.1 to P.7 are the sale exemplars which can be
considered to determine correct market value of the
acquired lands as no other legally acceptable evidence is
available on record. We are of the view that there is no
evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or
acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood
and placing reliance on Exs.P1 to P7 is reasonably safe.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
Admittedly, the determination of market value should be
as on 24.04.2005 i.e., the date of issuance of preliminary
notification. Ex.P.1 - sale deed dated 19.01.2005 is of
the Bellary village and not of the Mundargi village and
Exs.P.2 to P.9 are also of the Bellary village. The
aforesaid sale transactions are on different dates from
13.05.2003 to 19.01.2005. The extent in the aforesaid
sale deeds is a small extent of land as can be seen from
the schedule to the aforesaid sale deeds. The sale
consideration in Exs.P.1 to P.7 is ranging from
Rs.6,18,750/- to Rs.13,12,000/-. Though the sale deeds
at Exs.P.1 to P.7 are not of the same village, the
covenant of the sale deeds indicates the nature of lands
covered in the said sale deed which are agricultural lands
having irrigation facility and the acquired lands are also
agricultural lands having irrigation facility. The oral
evidence of CW.1 and his report at Ex.C.1 indicate that
the Court Commissioner has inspected the land and as
per his report it demonstrates that, surrounding lands to
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
the lands in question have been developed. The report of
the Court Commissioner indicates that at the Southern
portion of the acquired lands, the Housing Board has
acquired the lands for formation of layouts and within the
distance of 1 km of the acquired lands, there exists
Bellary - Bangalore Highway, electric transmission
station is at the distance of 1 ½ km, Ring road is at the
distance of 1 km and Mundargi village limits is within 1
km, within the distance of 3 ½ km there exists
Government Medical College and within the distance of 5
kms Krishnadevaraya University has come up. The Court
Commissioner is of the opinion that the lands are worth
more than Rs.50,00,000/-. Admittedly, the report is
dated 19.06.2012 which is after a period of 7 years of the
issuance of preliminary notification. Hence, the report
with regard to the development of the surrounding areas
of the acquired lands cannot be taken into account to
come to the conclusion that at the time of acquisition,
the lands in question were having a potential to consider
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
as developed lands. The report of the Court
Commissioner is not supported with any of the
documentary evidence to substantiate the assertion
made in the report at Ex.C.1.
(g) We have meticulously gone through Exs.P.1 to
P.7, the sale deeds referred supra wherein, the various
extents of lands were alienated from 2003 to 2005 and
the sale consideration shown in the aforesaid exhibits is
ranging from Rs.9,60,000/- to Rs.13,12,000/-. Taking
note of the sale examples as per Exs.P.1 to P.7, we are
of the considered view that the Reference Court though
not assigned the detailed reasons to arrive at a
conclusion and to re-determine the compensation at
Rs.11,00,000/- per acre, we are of the view that the
determination of the market value arrived by the
Reference Court at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre is just and
proper and does not call for any modification. For the
aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the
following:
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10160-DB
HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS
ORDER
MFA.Nos.101519, 101516, 101517 and 101518 of
2014 and MFA.CROB.Nos.100035, 100036 and 100037 of
2015 are dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RH
CT-AN
