Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.6057 OF 2012
Mallappa Dead by L.Rs. & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer & Anr. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No.1573 OF 2018
Arvind & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
In Civil Appeal No.6057/2012
1. This appeal is directed against the final
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.12.04
17:33:55 IST
Reason:
order/judgment dated 12.10.2007 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No.594 of
2
2003 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed
by the respondents herein and reduced the
compensation awarded to the appellants herein by
award dated 30.09.2002 passed by the Additional Civil
Judge (Sr. Division) Hubli in LAC No.58/87.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in
this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts of the
case hereinbelow.
3. The appellants are the claimants (landowners)
and the respondents are the State Authoritiesnon
applicants in the land acquisition reference
proceedings out of which this appeal arises. The State
of Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”) acquired the land measuring 24 acres 15 guntas
bearing Survey No. 44, Naruab Thimmasagar Village,
Hubli Taluk District Dharwad. The land was acquired
3
for Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board,
Bangalore for a public purpose "expansion of existing
industrial estate in Tahsil Hubli".
4. The notification was accordingly issued under
Section 28(1) on 23/28.06.1980. It was published in
the official Gazette on 03.07.1980 (page 152 part III
1). This notification was followed by issuance of
another notification on 27.05.1981 under Section 28
(4) of the Act. The appellants being the owners of the
land in question became entitled to claim
compensation for their land.
5. This led to initiation of the proceedings for
determination of the compensation payable to the
appellants for their land under the Act. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No. 1 herein) by
his award dated 27.10.1986 awarded compensation to
the appellants at the rate of Rs.5/ per sq. meter = Rs.
500/ per Gunta.
4
6. The appellants (landowners) felt aggrieved and
prayed for making a reference to the Civil Court for re
determination of the rate of compensation. It was
accordingly made. By award dated 30.09.2002, the
Reference Court partly answered the reference in
appellants’ favour and enhanced the rate of
compensation at Rs.21,000/ per Gunta.
7. The appellants and the State Authorities both felt
aggrieved of the award of the Reference Court and filed
appeals in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
The appellants prayed for further enhancement in the
rate of compensation whereas the State prayed for
reduction in the rate.
8. By impugned judgment/order, the High Court
allowed the appeal filed by the State in part and
reduced the rate of compensation to Rs.10250/ per
Gunta from Rs.21,000/ per Gunta fixed by the
Reference Court. The High Court fixed the market rate
5
at Rs.14,500/ per Gunta and deducting 30% towards
development charges fixed at Rs.10,250/ per Gunta.
As a consequence, the appeal filed by the landowners
was dismissed which has given rise to filing of this
appeal by way of special leave by the landowners in
this Court.
9. The question, which arises for consideration in
this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in
reducing the rate of compensation from Rs.21,000/
per Gunta to Rs. 10,250/ per Gunta.
10. In other words, the question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court
was justified in holding that the market value of the
land in question was Rs.10,250/ per Gunta on the
date of its acquisition.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we are
inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the
6
impugned order of the High Court restore the award of
the Reference Court/Civil Court with slight
modification as indicated infra .
12. It may be mentioned that the State had also filed
appeal by special leave in this Court against the
impugned order of the High Court wherein the
grievance of the State was that the High Court was not
justified in fixing the market rate at Rs. 10,250/ per
Gunta. According to the State, the rate should have
been determined at a much lower rate than
Rs.10,250/ per Gunta. This Court by order dated
04.11.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by the State and
affirmed the impugned order.
13. On perusal of the record, we find that the Special
Deputy Commissioner (LAO) while awarding
compensation recorded a finding that the acquired
land in question is suitable for construction of the
buildings. It was also held that the land is situated in
7
the midst of welldeveloped area of the city and is
surrounded by several big factories, industrial estate
and the housing colonies. It was also held that the
land is abutting the main road passing through Hubli.
14. In addition, the appellants filed 10 sale deeds by
way of exemplars to prove the market value. These sale
deeds were executed from 1977 to 1982 in relation to
adjacent lands. The value of the land sold by these
sale deeds varies from Rs.7250/ per Gunta to
Rs.57,000/ per Gunta. The lands involved in these
sale deeds are of smaller area.
15. As mentioned above, while appreciating the
aforementioned evidence, the Special Deputy
Commissioner determined the market rate of the land
in question at Rs.500/ per Gunta whereas the
Reference Court fixed the compensation at the rate of
Rs.21,000/ per Gunta. The High Court, however,
reduced it to Rs.10,250/ per Gunta.
8
16. In our considered opinion, the market rate
determined by the reference Court at the rate of
Rs.21,000/ per Gunta was the proper market rate of
the land in question and the same, therefore, should
have been upheld by the High Court. In other words,
the High Court was not justified in reducing the rate
determined by the reference Court from Rs.21,000/
per Gunta to Rs.10,250/ per Gunta and instead the
High Court should have upheld the rate fixed by the
Reference Court.
17. In our considered view, there is enough evidence
to prove the potentiality of the land in question as
would be clear from the findings of the Land
Acquisition Officer mentioned above. Apart from it, the
landowners have also proved the market value of the
land in question by filing 10 sale deeds wherein it is
established that price of the land situated in the
9
adjacent area has varied from Rs.7250/ per Gunta to
Rs.57,000/ per Gunta between 1977 till 1982.
18. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
factors, we are of the view that there was no justifiable
reason for the High Court to reduce the rate from
Rs.21,000/ per Gunta to Rs.14,500/ per Gunta and
then deducting 30% towards development charges
fixed at Rs. 10,250/ per Gunta.
19. In our opinion, having regard to the totality of the
facts and the circumstances emerging from the record
and keeping in view the evidence adduced by the
parties, we consider just and proper to fix Rs.21,000/
per Gunta as the market value of the land in question
and after deducting 10% towards the development
charges fix the market price of the land in question at
Rs.18,900/ per Gunta.
20. In other words, we hold and accordingly fix the
market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs.
10
18,900/ per Gunta for payment of compensation to
the appellants for their land. The appellants are also
entitled to get other statutory compensation payable
under the Act, which is now to be recalculated on the
basis of the market rate fixed by this Court.
21. The respondents are accordingly directed to re
calculate the compensation amount payable to the
appellants in the light of the market rate fixed by this
Court, i.e., Rs.18,900/ per Gunta and after making
proper verification pay to the appellants the total
compensation within 3 months.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order
is set aside.
In Civil Appeal No.1573 of 2018
This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court
of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in M.F.A. No.24071 of
11
2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal
filed by the appellants herein and reduced the rate of
compensation to 10,250/ per Gunta from
Rs.21,000/ per Gunta on the grounds of parity which
was granted to the adjacent land in question in
S.No.44 in LAC No.58/1987.
In view of the order passed above in C.A. No.6057
of 2012, this appeal is disposed of on the same terms.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 03, 2018