Partly allowed

The Deputy Chief Engineer v. Guusiddapp Chanabasappa Ghali

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2019MFA/20943/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal by the Deputization Chief Engineer against a land acquisition award. The Court held that since the market value was based on small piece sale deeds for a larger 19-gunta tract, a 40% deduction for developmental charges was necessary, modifying the award to Rs.75,000 per gunta.

What did the court decide?

The market value determined by the Reference Court at Rs.1,25,000 per gunta is reduced by 40% to Rs.75,000 per gunta. The appeal is disposed of with this modification.

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs Guusiddapp Chanabasappa Ghali — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶8

MFA NO.20943/2013 (LAC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION,

¶11

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY ZONE, HUBLI, KESHWAPUR, DOUBLING RAILWAY WORK.

¶12

... APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN S HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶14

AND

¶15

GURUSIDDAPP CHANABASAPPA GHALI HOUSE NO.54, BROADWAY HUBLI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶16

1A) MUTTAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA GHALI AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, HOUSE NO.54, BROADWAY, HUBLI

¶17

1B) SHIVAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA GHALI AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, HOUSE NO. 54, BROADWAY, HUBLI

¶18

¶19

1C) GANAPATHI GURUSIDDAPPA GHALI AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, HOUSE NO. 54, BROADWAY, HUBLI

¶20

1D) HANDRALEKHA W/O. MRUTHUNJAYA GHALI AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KASABAGOUDAR ONI, DHARWAD

¶21

1E) MANJULA W/O. PRAKASH ABBIGERI AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. OLD SARAFF BAZAR, GADAG

¶22

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.SUNIL DESAI, ADV. FOR R1A TO R1E SRI. V.S.KALASRUMATH, HCGP FOR R2)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:25.07.2012 PASSED IN LAC.NO.3/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBLI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,25,000/- PER GUNTA.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) has been filed by the

¶28

¶29

beneficiary, against judgment dated 25.7.2012, passed by the reference Court.

¶30

Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal

¶31

briefly stated are that, the respondents are the owner of agricultural land measuring 19 guntas forming part of R.S.No.511A situate at village Keshwapur, taluk Hubli, district Dharwad. The aforesaid land was required for the purposes of doubling the railway line from Hubli to Hebsoor. Thereupon, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, was issued on 16.6.2008. An award was passed on 7.11.2009 by which the State Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land of the respondent at the rate of Rs.10,607/per gunta. Being dissatisfied, the respondents sought the reference Under Section 18 of the Act.

¶32

¶33

The Reference Court by judgment

¶34

dated 25.7.2012 determined the market value of

¶35

the land of the respondent at Rs.1,25,000/- per gunta. The Reference Court relied on Exhibits P18 and P19 i.e Sale deeds, in respect of small piece of land for arriving at the market value of the land of the respondent. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this Court to Sale Deed Ex.P18 submitted that the sale deed was executed on 17/1/2008 in respect of land at measuring 14 guntas 25 annas for a sale consideration of Rs.3,88,000/- whereas Ex.P19 was executed on 1/1/2008 in respect of land measuring 2 gutnas and 14 annas and the sale consideration was Rs.3,68,000/-. It is further submitted that the aforesaid sale deeds which is in respect of small pieces of land and could not

¶37

¶38

have been made the basis for determination of 19 guntas of land belonging to the respondents without making appropriate deductions. It is further submitted that the land of the respondents is not situate within the HubliDharwad comprehensive developmental plan. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision rendered by three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Himmat Singh vs. State of M.P.,

¶39

(2013) 16 SCC 392 .

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the

¶41

acquisition of the land has been made for doubling the railway line. Therefore, the deduction to the extent of 10% alone should be made. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of

¶42

¶43

Nelson Fernandes and Others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others, (2007) 9 SCC 447, Trishal Jain and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another (2011) 6 SCC 47 as well as in Chakas Vs. State of Punjab ( 2011) 12 SCC 128 and decision of this Court in MFA No.20268/2012 decided on 29/11/2012. It is further submitted that since the land has been acquired for the purposes of laying down the railway track therefore, deduction to the extent of 10% alone should be made and the land of the petitioner even though an agricultural land has potential for non agricultural use.

¶44

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. The Supreme Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes and Others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (supra) has

¶45

¶46

deducted 20% of the amount towards

¶47

developmental cost in case of land which was acquired for the purposes of construction of railway track for Konkan Railways. In case of

¶48

Trishal Jain and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another (supra), the land measuring 7.89 acres was acquired for the purpose of construction of polytechnic

¶49

institution.

¶50

In the aforesaid context, the Supreme

¶51

Court has held in the facts of the aforesaid case which is evident from paragraph 80 of the decision that the land in question was already developed and therefore has deducted 10% from the market value on account of development charges. The decision rendered in the case of

¶52

Nelson Fernandes and Others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (supra) was

¶53

¶54

considered by three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Himmat Singh vs. State of M.P. (supra) and after referring to the principles laid down in the case of Nelson Fernandes and

¶55

Others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (supra), the same have been approved. In paragraph 36, the Supreme Court by taking into account the fact that the sale deeds were filed in respect of small pieces of plots, has approved the deduction of 50% for the purpose of determination of market value for 3.627 hectares.

¶56

In the instance case, the respondents have not produced any sale deed except Exs.P18 and P19 which pertain to small pieces of land measuring 14 guntas 25 annas and 2 guntas and 15 annas which reflect the market value of the aforesaid land to be Rs.3,88,000/and Rs.3,68,000/- respectively. The land of the

¶57

¶58

petitioner measures 19 guntas. Therefore, the land of the petitioner comparatively is a large tract of land. Therefore, the sale deeds Exs.P18 and P19 cannot be form basis for ascertaining the market value of the land of the respondents without making the appropriate deduction in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Himmat Singh vs. State of M.P. (supra).

¶59

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the land of the petitioner ad measures at 19 guntas. We deem it appropriate to deduct 40% towards developmental charges from the market value of the property. Thus, market value of the property of the respondents is determined as Rs.75,000/- per gunta. Needless to state that the respondents shall be entitled to solatium as

¶60

¶61

well as interest under various statutory heads as are admissible under the Act. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Reference Court is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Vmb

The Deputy Chief Engineer v. Guusiddapp Chanabasappa Ghali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Chief Engineer v. Guusiddapp Chanabasappa Ghali

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

Shankargouda S/O. Siddanagouda Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Haraji S/O Karasan Patel Vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

Basappa S/O Shivabasappa Hugar by Lrs Vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Naseema W/O Abdul Mulla Vs the Department of Primary and

Sri.M.H.Anavati S/O Hasanasab Vs the State of Karnataka

The Secretary Vs Basavaraj S/O Fakkirappa Hattimatur