Partly allowed

Baburao Gangadhar Doddannawar, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2019MFA/20343/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Land Acquisition case, the High Court held that agricultural land in a development plan with non-agricultural potential must use non-agricultural sale prices for valuation. After applying appropriate deductions for size, the court enhanced compensation from Rs.21,000 to Rs.70,000 per gunta.

What did the court decide?

Market value enhanced from Rs.21,000 to Rs.70,000 per gunta; appeal partly allowed.

Baburao Gangadhar Doddannawar, Vs the Assistant… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶7

M.F.A. NO.20343 OF 2013 (LAC)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SHRI. BABURAO GANGADHAR DODDANNAWAR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: H.NO. 244/21, TASHILDAR GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001.

¶10

SHRI. SURESH S/O. GANGADHAR DODDANNAWAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KALMATH GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001.

¶11

SMT. SAVITRI GANGADHAR DODDANNAWAR,

¶12

DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES APPELLANT NO. 1 & 2 SONS, APPELLANT NO. 4 & 5 ARE DAUGHTERS ALREADY ON RECORD.

¶13

SMT. DEVAKI W/O. PARISAPPA GUNDAPPANNAVAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AFFAIRS, R/O: ANGOL, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001.

¶14

SMT. LEELA W/O. DEVAKUMAR BALIKAI,

¶15

¶16

AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001. 6. SHRI. BAHUBALI S/O. APPASAHEB DODDANNAWAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: TANAJI GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001. 7. SMT. SUMAN W/O APPASAHEB DODDANNAWAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: TANAJI GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001. 8. SHRI. BHARATESH S/O. APPASAHEB DODDANNAWAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: H.NO. 900/1, TANAJI GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001 9. SMT. PRAMA W/O. ADINATH PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: H.NO. 900/1, TANAJI GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001 10. SMT. MANJULA W/O MALAGOUDA BAGANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: H.NO. 900/1, TANAJI GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001 11. SMT. JAYASHRI W/O. NANASAHEB BAGANI, AGE: 40 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: H.NO. 900/1, TANAJI GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001 12. SMT. PADMA S PATIL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: H.NO. 900/1, TANAJI GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001 13. SHRI. SHEETAL ANNASAHEB DODDANNAWAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KALMATH GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001 14. SMT. KUSUMAVATI W/O ANNASAHEB DODDANNAWAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KALMATH GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001 15. SMT. MANGAL W/O SANJAY WATHARE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KALMATH GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001 16. SMT. BHARATI W/O BAHUBALI SANGANNAWAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KALMATH GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001

¶19

¶20

SMT. REKHA W/O ANNASAHEB DODDANNAWAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KALMATH GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001

¶21

SMT. GEETA W/O. ANNASAHEB DODDANNAWAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: KALMATH GALLI, TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM - 590 001 ... APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. L. T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BELGAUM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), O & M DIVISION, HESCOM, NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADV., FOR R2)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2012 IN LAC NO.104/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BELGAUM PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

In this appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short), the appellants have assailed the validity of the judgment dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Reference Court by which market value of the land of the appellants which admeasures 02 Acre 16 Guntas has been determined at Rs.21,000/- per Gunta.

¶29

The facts giving rise in filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondents issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 09.04.1995 which included the land of the appellants. The land of the appellants was required for installation of K.V. Sub-station near Fort area of Belagavi for the benefit of HESCOM, Belagavi. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 30.11.1999 and determined the market value of the

¶30

¶31

land of the appellants at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court by judgment dated 29.09.2012 inter alia held that the sale deeds Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.14 pertains to non-agricultural lands and therefore, the aforesaid sale deeds are not relevant to assess the market value of the land in question. The Reference Court placed reliance on Ex.P.9 dated 28.03.1998 i.e. a post-sale notification in respect of agricultural land and by adopting deduction at the rate of 10% per annum in the market value, determined the market value of the land of the appellants at Rs.21,000/- per Gunta. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶32

Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought to have appreciated

¶33

¶34

that from perusal of the Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8, it is evident that the land of the appellants was situated within comprehensive development plan. It is further submitted that the land of the appellants has potentiality for non-agricultural use as it is surrounded by non-agricultural lands and Circuit house is also situate in front of the land of the appellants. It is further submitted that the Reference Court erred in not placing reliance on Ex.P.14, by which non-agricultural land admeasuring 4.67 Guntas and was sold for consideration of Rs.6,60,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,65,000/- per Gunta merely on the ground that sale deed pertains to non-agricultural land. The sale deed Ex.P.14 could have formed the basis for determining the market value of the land of the appellants, which had potentiality for nonagricultural use as the same was situate in the comprehensive development plan by making

¶35

appropriate deductions.

¶36

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for

¶38

respondents has submitted that the appellants did not adduce any evidence with regard to market value of the property and had produced sale deeds with regard to non-agricultural land, which is rightly been discarded by the Reference Court. It is further submitted that the past sale notification pertaining to agricultural land has been taken into account after making appropriate deductions, which represents the market value of the property of the appellants, which is an agricultural land.

¶39

We have considered the submissions made

¶40

on both sides and have perused the records. Before proceeding further, we may advert to well settled legal prepositions of law in Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC

¶41

150 , wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe

¶42

¶43

bases for valuation of large tracts of lands as the two are not a comparable properties. It has further been held that the evidence of market value of sales of small developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents of lands. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued is ripe for use for building purposes, in such a case, the prices of small pieces of land can form the bases after making appropriate deductions.

¶44

The aforesaid decision was quoted with approval in cases of Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751, K.S.Shivadevamma vs. Asst. Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 2 SCC 62, Atma Sigh vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568

¶45

¶46

and in the case of Shubharam and others vs. State of Hariyana and others, 2010 (1) SCC 444 the aforesaid principle of law was approved. In Mallappa

¶47

v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2019 SC 462 , it has been held that in case the land in question has potentiality for non-agricultural use, the same should be taken into account with reference to sale deeds even in respect of small piece of land by making appropriate deductions. It is trite law that some element of guess work is always involved in

¶48

assessment of market value of the land.

¶49

In the backdrop of aforesaid legal preposition of law the fact of the case on hand may be examined. In the instant case, the land of the appellants is situate in the comprehensive development plan and is admittedly surrounded by the lands, which are non-agricultural lands. In front of the land of the appellants, Circuit house is situated.

¶50

¶51

Therefore, the land of the appellants has the potentiality for non-agricultural use. By sale deed, Ex.P.14, land admeasuring 4.67 Guntas was sold for consideration at the rate of Rs.1,65,000/- per Gunta for total consideration of Rs.6,60,000/-. We are conscious of the fact that the land of the appellants is larger in area, which admeasures 2 Acres 16 Guntas. Therefore the appropriate deduction is required to be made before determining the market value.

¶52

At this stage, we may refer to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in T. N. Sanikop v.

¶53

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Belgaum, ILR 2007 KAR 2324 , wherein by placing reliance in respect of sale of non-agricultural land, which was sold for four Guntas for total consideration of Rs.6,60,000/- for market value of agricultural land was fixed at Rs.99,000/- per gunta. The notification in the aforesaid case under Section 4(1) of the Act was

¶54

¶55

issued on 19.12.1994, which is approximately similar in point of time. It is pertinent to mention here that aforesaid decision of Division Bench of this Court was subject matter of appeal in Civil Appeal Nos.10172175/2014 and by judgment dated 12.11.2014, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reduced the market value of the land at Rs.70,000/- per Gunta in respect of land in same city namely Belgaum.

¶56

Admittedly, the land of the appellants as well as the land involved in the case of T. N. Sanikop (supra) were agricultural lands and are situate in the city of Belgaum and had potentiality for nonagricultural purpose. By placing reliance in respect of sale of 4.67 Guntas of land for consideration of Rs.6,60,000/-, the market value of the land was determined at Rs.70,000/- per gunta. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and for the reasons assigned therein, we fix the

¶57

¶58

market value of the land at Rs.70,000/- per Gunta in the instant case as well, subject to the condition that the appellants shall deposit the deficit amount of Court fee within four weeks from today. Needless to state that the appellants shall be entitled to solatium as well as interest which are admissible under the statutory heads as prescribed under the Act. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Reference Court is modified. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with costs.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

yan

Baburao Gangadhar Doddannawar, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburao Gangadhar Doddannawar, v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

M/S Infotech Computer Educatuion Vs the Karnataka Institute of Medical Science

Chandrashekar Sridhar Naik, Vs the State of Karnataka

The Commissioner Vs the Principal Secretary

Mahaboobsab S/O Sannaharjarathsab Makandar, Vs State of Karnataka

The Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri.Basavanni Ramu Chogule

The Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri.Uttam Govind Savant