Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Abdul Razak S/O Abdul Jaleel and Anr.

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2016MFA/30573/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment dismisses adjacent appeals regarding enhanced compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. The court held that the State failed to prove the lands were distinct enough to warrant different valuation and found the development deduction and market rate reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed as there was no substance in either the State's or the claimants' contentions regarding compensation calculation.

The State of Karnataka Vs Abdul Razak S/O Abdul Jaleel… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 30573/2013 (LAC)

¶9

C/W

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 30877/2013 (LAC)

¶11

In MFA No.30573/2013:

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

The State of Karnataka Through Special Land Acquisition Office, Karanja Project Bidar – 585 104

¶14

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation at Bidar – 585 104

¶15

… APPELLANTS

¶16

(Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate)

¶17

¶18

AND:

¶19

Abdul Razak S/o Abdul Jaleel Aged: Major, Occupation: Agriculture Resident of Mirzapur Taluk: Bidar – 585 104

¶20

Abdul Khaliq S/o Abdul Jaleel Aged: Major Occupation: Agriculture Resident of Latifpura Taluk: Bidar – 585 104

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(Shri R.S. Sidhapurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Shri Sanjeev Kumar C. Patil, Advocate for caveator Respondent No.2)

¶23

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 54 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, against the Judgment and award dated 27.09.2010 passed in LAC No:74/2004 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bidar, wherein partly allowing the reference petition filed Under Section 18(1) of The L.A. Act & awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,81,000/- per Acre.

¶24

IN MFA No.30877/2013:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

Abdul Razak S/o Abdul Jaleel Aged about: 37 years Occupation: Agriculture

¶27

¶28

Resident of Mirzapur Taluk: Bidar, District: Bidar

¶29

Abdul Khaliq S/o Abdul Jaleel Aged about 30 years Occupation: Agriculture Resident of Mirazapur Taluk: Bidar, District. Bidar

¶30

… APPELLANTS

¶31

(Shri R.S. Sidhapurkar, Advocate)

¶32

AND:

¶33

The State of Karnataka through The Land Acquisition Officer Karanja Project, Bidar Taluka: & District: 585 401

¶34

The Executive Engineer (Minor Irrigation) Division No.1, Bidar Taluk & District: Bidar – 585 401

¶35

… RESPONDENTS

¶36

(Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate)

¶37

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 54 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, against the Judgment and award dated 27.09.2010 passed in LAC No:74/2004 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bidar, wherein partly allowing the reference petition and enhanced the compensation of Rs. 6,81,000/- per Acre with all statutory benefits.

¶38

¶39

These appeals coming on for final hearing this day, ANAND BYRAREDDY J., delivered the following:

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

These appeals are heard and disposed of by this common

¶42

judgment. The appeal in MFA No.30573/2013 is filed by the State questioning the enhanced compensation awarded in favour of respondents and in MFA No.30877/2013, the claimants are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded.

¶43

The facts leading upto these appeals are that the State of Karnataka through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, acquired land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’, for brevity) belonging to the appellants in land bearing Sy.No.7/1 measuring 6 acres 5 guntas of Mirzapur-T village, Bidar Taluk and District, for the purpose of construction of the Astoor tank. The preliminary notification was issued under 4(1) of the LA Act as on 09.08.2001 and the final notification was issued under 6(1) of the LA Act as on 16.10.2002.

¶44

¶45

The Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award whereby the market value of the land was taken at the rate of Rs.60,899 per acre as per the award dated 02.01.2004. The owner of the land not being satisfied with the same had filed his objections and sought reference of the matter in the Civil court seeking enhancement of compensation. In the matter having been referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, the owner had tendered evidence through PWs.1 and 2 and produced documents in support of their claim for enhancement. The Reference Court has observed

¶46

that there was evidence tendered in support of the claim for enhancement and has assigned the following reasons in arriving at the enhanced compensation and by placing reliance on Ex.P13 whereby a portion of land bearing Sy.No.7/2 was acquired in the year 1999 and that the land in the present case on hand namely land bearing Sy.No.7/1 was acquired in the year 2001, namely two years after the portion of the land bearing Sy.No.7/2 was acquired and the value of the land in the area having been found to be with the developmental potential and the fact that it would become

¶47

¶48

urbanized, has held that 1/4^th of the said acquired land if taken as the confirmed enhanced market value in the year 1999, the value could be assessed at Rs.4,35,600/- per acre and for each year further enhanced value is factored in, which could be rounded off to Rs.6,81,000/- and has accordingly held that the market value would be assessed Rs.6,81,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. On this basis the Reference Court having granted the enhanced compensation with the attendant statutory benefits, the State is in appeal questioning the judgment on the following grounds.

¶49

It is contended by the learned Additional Government

¶50

Advocate that the Reference Court has placed reliance on two documents namely Exhibits P13 and P14 which are certified copies of the judgment in LAC No.8/2008 determining the market value in respect of land bearing Sy.No.7/1 of Mirzapur village of Bidar taluk whereas the land in question in the present case on hand is land bearing Sy.No.7/2 of Mirzapur (T) village and that they are not adjacent lands and lands belonging to the same village and

¶51

¶52

therefore, the Reference Court was not justified in proceeding on that premise, as admittedly they are lands belongings to two different villages and in the absence of any material evidence to demonstrate that the nature, quality and the location of the land was identical, it was not justified in the court below placing reliance on Exhibits P13 and P14 to determine the market value on such an exorbitant rate and therefore, the very basis is not available for the Reference Court to have awarded such exorbitant compensation.

¶53

It is also contended that the Reference Court has

¶54

proceeded to deduct only 33% of the value of the land towards development whereas the object for which the land was acquired was for formation of a minor irrigation tank which would require much investment by way of rendering the land as suitable for construction of a minor irrigation tank with all attendant facilities and cost of development taken at 33% was much on the lower side. Further, the court below having opined that the land had potentiality for development for non-agricultural purposes, is again

¶55

¶56

a presumption without any basis and escalation in relation to land bearing Sy.No.7/2 could be at 25% of the value that was arrived at. In respect of the said land bearing Sy.No.7/1 was again being enhanced was without any basis and the difference being only two years, the adoption and escalation at 25% was unrealistic and exorbitant. On these grounds the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the judgment of the Reference Court ought to be set aside.

¶57

Whereas the claimants who are appellants in the connected appeal would seek that the judgment of the Reference Court has not awarded just compensation. In that the claimants were entitled to much higher compensation. In this regard, he would draw attention the material on record which has not been discussed by the Reference Court. But however he would draw attention to the finding of the court that the assertion of the claimants that surrounding lands were sold at Rs.45/-per sq.ft in the year 2001, has been negated and the Reference Court has further

¶58

¶59

accepted that in Exs.P13 and P14 the market value at the relevant point of time being in consonance with the market value shown in the self assessment of the City Municipal Council at Rs.30/- per sq.ft, would necessarily have to be taken as the actual value and that the amount claimed at Rs.45/- per sq.ft, being on the higher side, would yet entitle the claimants to the admitted rate of Rs.30/per sq.ft, and even on that token of reasoning, the appellants are entitled to 2/3^rd enhanced market rate. Whereas, the Reference Court has taken the rate at Rs.10/- per sq.ft, when admittedly the rate was at Rs.30/- per sq.ft, even according to the rate adopted for self assessment of property taxes payable to the City Municipal Council. Hence, it could not be said that the compensation awarded is exorbitant on the grounds that were urged by the State.

¶60

The learned Counsel would seek to contend that the

¶61

assertion on the part of the State that the land in Sy.No.7/1 was of Mirzapur village and the land in the present case on hand was of Mirzapur (T) village and that they are not situated in the same

¶62

¶63

vicinity but far apart, is not demonstrated by reference to any material evidence. On the other hand, the evidences of PWs.1 and 2 were never challenged nor was it seriously disputed before the Reference Court. Therefore the contention that they are lands which are distinct and separate and far away from each other is an assertion that is not established by reference to any material evidence. The further contention that the deduction towards development of the land being taken at 33% is on the lower side, is again incorrect in respect of which reliance is sought to be placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrashekar dead by LRs vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 390 which would defeat the assertion of the State, for there is no hard and fast rule as to how the deduction should be made as regards development. When the purpose in the present case on hand is development of minor irrigation tank, the development expenses being exorbitant would not be of much significance so as to enable the State to allow deduction of 33% of the value of the land. In so far as the potentiality of the land for

¶64

¶65

non-agricultural purposes is concerned, there is ample evidence placed on record to indicate that it was surrounded by industrially developed land and that the neighbouring land was within the area of Ward No.33 of Bidar and there are plots measuring 45x30 sold anything between Rs.80,000/- and Rs.63,000/- for which the materials were produced. Apart from the fact that there was a ring road passing through the land bearing Sy.No.7/1 and Sy.No.7/2 and the adjacent land was acquired by the Government for formation of 33 KV power station, etc., which adequately supported the finding of the Court below that the land had non-agricultural developmental potential and hence would submit that the appellants are certainly entitled to a marginal increase in the market rate of the land at Rs.30 per sq.ft, which the Reference Court itself has found was the value adopted for the purpose of the taxation by the CMC and hence seeks that the appeal of the State be dismissed and the claimants’ appeal be allowed granting further enhanced

¶66

compensation.

¶67

¶68

Given the above rival contentions in the two appeals, in so

¶69

far as the contention on behalf of the State that the land in Mirzapur village and Mirzapur(T) village are distinct, far apart and cannot be equated as carrying the same market value is a contention, the burden of establishing which is clearly on the State. The evidence before the Reference Court was never disputed in that regard and it is also plausible that they were in fact adjacent lands given that they bear almost the same survey number. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that contention cannot be accepted. Similarly, in so far as the deduction of 33% being on the lower side towards development of the land for the purpose of which it was acquired, was again a matter which could have been easily established by the State by producing an assessment of the cost of development of the minor irrigation tank, which exercise has not been carried out by the State. Therefore, the contention that the deduction towards development is on the lower side cannot be accepted. In so far as the land having non-agricultural potential, there is material evidence on record which the Reference Court

¶70

¶71

having accepted cannot be disputed. In so far as the contention of the claimants that the market rate ought to have been taken at Rs.30/- the Reference Court having adopted the rate at Rs.10/- per sq.ft, drawing sustenance from the market rate fixed in the land bearing Sy.No.7/1, at the choice of the claimants the substantial enhancement of 25% per year of the value so adopted having been applied, the claimants also claiming Rs.30/- per sq.ft, in so far as the land is concerned is not tenable, for the Reference Court certainly had the discretion to apply one or the other measure for granting such compensation and the same having been done with prudence, cannot be faulted. Accordingly, there is no substance in either of these appeals and the same stand dismissed.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

sdu

The State of Karnataka v. Abdul Razak S/O Abdul Jaleel and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Abdul Razak S/O Abdul Jaleel and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hyderabad Krantaka Education Society Vs the State of Karnataka

Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Shri Kushal D.Oswal Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt. Seema W/O S.C.Krishna Murthy Vs S.C.Krishna Murthy S/O Late Shrinivas Rao

Kallappa S/O Dhulappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.