Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6587-6588 of 2000
PETITIONER:
SHARADAMMA
RESPONDENT:
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/2007
BENCH:
C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
C.K. THAKKER, J.
The present appeals arise out of a common
judgment and order passed by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore on October 12, 1998 in MFA
Nos. 1387 of 1994 and 1376 of 1994. By the said order,
the High Court confirmed the order passed by the
Reference Court on May 31, 1993 in LAC Nos. 33 of
1980 and 76 of 1980.
To appreciate the grievance of the appellant, it is
necessary to state few facts.
The appellant Smt. Sharadamma, widow of B.M.
Venkataswamappa is the owner of land bearing Survey
Nos. 112 and 113 situate at village Byappanahalli.
Survey No. 112 admesures 2 acres while Survey No. 113
admeasures 1 acre and 1 gunta. The land was sought to
be acquired for expansion of New Government Electric
Factory (’NGEF’ for short), Bangalore. A preliminary
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) was issued on
March 26, 1965. The claimant demanded an amount of
Rs.20.00 per square yard for the land. The Land
Acquisition Officer, by an award dated October 25, 1965
awarded compensation of Rs.8,000 per acre. It is not in
dispute that possession of land was taken over on
November 16, 1965. Since the claimant was not
satisfied with the amount offered by the Land
Acquisition Officer vide his award referred to above, she
sought Reference under Section 18 of the Act and the
Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District vide his order
dated May 31, 1972 enhanced the compensation and
awarded Rs.20.00 per square yard less Rs.3,000 per
acre in view of the fact that though the land was having
potentiality to conversion for non agricultural use, no
such order of conversion had been passed and it had
come in evidence that conversion charge was Rs.3,000
per acre. Thus the claimant’s contention was upheld and
the compensation was awarded. The authorities,
however, were aggrieved by the enhancement and
approached the High Court by filing appeals. The High
Court noted that the Reference Court relied upon earlier
award but it was challenged and the case was before this
Court (Supreme Court). The matter was thus in a ’fluid
situation’. The High Court, therefore, thought it proper to
set aside the order passed by the Reference Court and to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
remand the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance
with law. It accordingly set aside the order passed by the
Reference Court granting liberty to the parties to adduce
further evidence and directed the Reference Court to
decide it afresh in accordance with law. After the
remand, the Reference Court once again considered the
matter on merits. By that time, the matter had already
been decided by this Court in Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bangalore v. B.M. Krishnamurthy, (1985) 1 SCC
469. The Reference Court, relying on B.M. Krishnamurthy
held that the claimant was entitled to compensation at
the rate of Rs.18,000 per acre and the order was passed
accordingly. The said order was confirmed by the High
Court which has been challenged in the present appeals.
Leave was granted by this Court on November 17,
2000 and the matter has been placed for final hearing.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the Reference Court had committed an error in not
awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.20 per square
yard which had been done earlier by an order dated July
31, 1972. It was submitted that no doubt the High Court
set aside the said order passed by the Reference Court
and remitted the matter with a direction to decide it
afresh, keeping in view the fact that a similar order was
challenged by the State Authorities and the matter was
pending in this Court. But it was submitted that the
matter was decided by this Court on January 22, 1985
in B.M. Krishnamurthy and the said decision clearly
helps the claimant. The Reference Court was, therefore,
not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.18,000 per
acre. The High Court also committed similar error and
hence the order passed by Reference Court and
confirmed by the High Court deserves to be set aside by
allowing the appeals.
The learned counsel for the respondents, however,
supported the order of the Reference Court and of the
High Court. According to him, the earlier order passed
by the Reference Court in 1972 could not be taken into
consideration since it was set aside by the High Court.
There is no error in the impugned order which deserves
interference by this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our
opinion, the appeals deserve to be allowed.
It is no doubt true that the order passed by the
Reference Court on July 31, 1972 awarding
compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs.20 per
square yard was set aside by the High Court in the light
of subsequent development and challenge to a similar
award before this Court. But it cannot be overlooked
that while dealing with the matter and considering the
claim of the claimant, the Reference Court considered
the situation and location of the land.
In paragraph 10, the Court observed:
"10. The only controversial question is
about the market value of the lands acquired.
To find out this aspect, the location of the
land has to be borne in mind. The lands
involved in these cases are in S.No. 112, 113
and 26 of Byappanahalli. Of them, it is
admitted that S.No.26 is behind NGEF and
S.No. 112 and 113 are in front of NGEF. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
evidence shows that NGEF had been built
sometime prior to the acquisition of these
lands. S.No. 112 and 113 are abutting
National High Way namely Bangalore-Madras
Road and on one side these two S.Nos. they
have another road leading from Bangalore-
Madras road to N.G.E.F. and some other
villages. The evidence shows that just
opposite to S.No.112 and 113 is the Aero
Engine Factory. Its location is made clear
from the village map Ex.P-24 and Ex.P-25.
The evidence placed before this Court also
shows that these lands are near the
Corporation limits. There is a Isolation
Hospital near the acquired land. It is also in
evidence that on the northern side of
S.No.112 and 113 is the Bangalore-Madras
Railway line. It is also in evidence that there
are railway quarters near the acquired land.
The evidence of P.W.2 shows that he had
formed a lay out in S.No. 10 of Byappanahalli
which is also shown to be very close to the
acquired land. There is also evidence that
Byappanahalli railway station and
Marshalling yard are very near the acquired
land, particularly near S.No.26. The evidence
shows that lot of building activity has taken
place in and around about the acquired land.
This would show that the lands acquired had
good transport facilities. The fact that number
of quarters are also found nearby would also
indicate that the lands acquired were also
suited for building purposes".
Keeping in view the site of the land, the Court
observed that it would clearly prove that having regard to
the location of the lands, they were suited for industrial
purpose. It was also observed that the fact that the lands
were ideally situated for industries was ’practically
conceded’ by Syed Abdul Khader, witness examined by
the respondents as RW1\027the Land Acquisition Officer,
who made the position clear in his General Valuation
Memorandum. The Reference Court also noticed that
Survey Nos. 112 and 113 had a frontage to the main
road. The claimant had placed material to show that
some lands which were very near to the acquired lands
had been requisitioned for the Military and the market
price of such land was Rs.27 per square yard. The Court
also considered the location of land bearing Survey No.
14 of Benniganahalli (which was the subject-matter of
challenge in B.M. Krishnamurthy). It was in interior part
and did not have a frontage unlike the land of Survey No.
112 or 113. The land of Survey No.112 and 113 had a
better situation and must get better compensation.
Regarding conversion of land, the Court in the
earlier order observed:
"I have fixed the minimum that could be given
for converted lands at Rs.20/- per sq. yard.
This would mean that this Court has to find
out whether the lands are all converted or
not. I feel that only in respect of S.No.112
there is evidence that it is converted land.
P.W.4 has told the court that he had asked
her relative PW5 to apply for conversion of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
S.No.112. PW4 and PW5 have a joint interest
in S.No.112. PW4 is entitled to 2 acres in it
while the remaining 2-30 guntas belong to
PW5. PW5 has stated that he had applied to
the Deputy Commissioner to convert this land
for non-agricultural purpose. Ex.P-8, issued
by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
District, shows that the Deputy Commissioner
had intimated him that action is being taken
to consider his application for conversion of
this land. The Deputy Commissioner has
requested PW5 not to put this land to non-
agricultural use till the Deputy Commissioner
takes a final decision in the matter. No
evidence has been placed before me to show
that the Deputy Commissioner has neither
accorded sanction nor refused to accord
sanction for the conversion of this land. The
evidence of PW5 that the Deputy
Commissioner did not send any intimation in
this connection stands unrebutted. Therefore,
under law, the sanction of conversion of the
land for non-agricultural purpose is deemed
to have been granted. Hence S.No.112 has to
be held as a converted land on the date of the
preliminary notification".
In the present proceedings, however, the Reference
Court, relying on B.M. Krishnamurthy, awarded
Rs.18,000/- per acre. The High Court, in the impugned
order, inter alia, stated that large number of lands
situated in Benniganahalli and Byappanahalli were
acquired for the NGEF under the Land Acquisition Act
which are abutting the lands in question and since in
respect of other lands compensation was awarded at the
rate of Rs.17,500 or Rs.18,000 per acre, award of
Rs.18,000 per acre to the claimants in the instant cases
could not be said to be inadequate or insufficient. The
High Court also observed that the Supreme Court
awarded an amount of Rs.12.50 paise per sq. yard to the
claimants and hence the claimants were not entitled to
anything more and the award of Rs.18,000 per acre
could not be interfered with.
In our view, the learned counsel for the claimant is
right in submitting that both the Courts were not correct
in not awarding compensation as claimed by the
appellant. The counsel is also right in referring to B.M.
Krishnamurthy, particularly as to location of the land in
question for claiming enhanced compensation vis-‘-vis
land bearing Survey No. 14. For the said purpose, he
relied upon paragraph 6 of B.M. Krishnamurthy. The
counsel also drew our attention to map which is on
record. It clearly shows that the land of Survey Nos. 112
and 113 is better located than the land of Survey No. 14
in B.N. Krishnamurthy. He also referred to deposition of
Syed Abdul Khader, the then Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bangalore from 1964 to 1967. The witness
admitted that Kissan Factory was located at the distance
of 3/4th mile from the acquired land. He further stated
that the Corporation limits were about two furlongs from
the acquired land. There was industrial potentiality of
the lands though the acquired lands were not converted.
He stated that Survey No. 112 was situated adjoining
Bangalore-Madras Highway and was in between old
Madras road and Madras-Bangalore Railway line.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
According to him, New Aero Engine Factory was very
much in existence at the time of acquisition and it was
opposite Survey No.112 on the other side of the old
Madras road. Near about the acquired land, there were
other factories also. Corporation limit was within a
distance of 50-60 yards from Aero Engine Factory limits.
He further stated that approach road from NGEF to old
Madras road was adjacent to Survey No. 112.
Byappanahalli Railway Station was 1 or 1-= furlongs
form Survey No. 112. He admitted that Survey No. 113
was abutting Survey No.112 and what was stated about
Survey No.112 held good as regards Survey No.113 also.
He admitted that Bangalore-Madras road was a National
Highway.
In view of the location of land being situated on
National Highway of Bangalore-Madras, near Railway
line and situated in Industrial Area, in our opinion, the
claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.20
per square yard as claimed by her. Of course, it is
admitted that the land was not converted to non-
agricultural use for which the owner was required to pay
an amount of Rs.3,000 per acre and to that extent the
amount deserves to be reduced. Accordingly, both the
appeals are allowed and the claimant is held entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.20 per square yard less
Rs.3,000 per acre. The appeals are accordingly allowed
with costs to the said extent.