Allowed

The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Smt Puttananjamma

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022MFA/8671/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant SLD Officer appealed against an award enhancing compensation for land acquisition. The High Court held the Trial Court erred by using a consent award from a different case to determine market value. The appeal was allowed, and the award was set aside for redetermination based on other evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the award is set aside; matter remanded to the Trial Court to fix market value without relying on consent award, with directions to dispose within four months.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Smt Puttananjamma — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 8671 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. JOSHI

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8671 OF 2017 (LAC)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

¶13

AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, K.R.S. ROAD, MYSURU - 570001.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. B. B. PATIL , ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. PUTTANANJAMMA W/O. CHIKKA @ DUMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS K.M.HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

¶18

SRI. MAHADEVA S/O CHIKKA @ DUMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶19

¶20

MFA No. 8671 of 2017

¶21

K.M.HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

¶22

SRI. RAVI S/O CHIKKA @ DUMMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, K.M.HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

¶23

SRI. CHANDRA S/O CHIKKA @ DUMMA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS K.M.HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

¶24

SMT. LAKSHMI D/O CHIKKA @ DUMMA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, K.M.HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

¶25

SRI. MAHESH S/O CHIKKA @ DUMMA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS K.M.HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

¶26

SMT. SIDAMMA W/O DUMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS K.M.HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

¶27

SRI. BASAVARAJU

¶28

¶29

MFA No. 8671 of 2017

¶30

S/O DUMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS K.M.HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

¶31

SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O DUMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS K.M.HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

¶32

SMT. MANJULA D/O DUMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS K.M.HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 10)

¶35

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.15.03.2017 PASSED IN LAC NO.73/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶36

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, C M JOSHI J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶39

and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 10.

¶40

¶41

MFA No. 8671 of 2017

¶42

This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 15-03-2017 passed in LAC No.73/2015 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, on the basis of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶43

The appellant who is the Special Land Acquisition

¶44

Officer, KIADB, has approached this Court contending that the KIADB being the statutory body established under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, had initiated the acquisition proceedings, whereby, land measuring 01 acre in Sy.No.267/3 of Kadakola village, Jayapura hobli of Mysuru Taluk, was acquired by issuing 4(1) Notification on 09-08-2005 and later, an award was passed, whereby, the market value of the land in question was fixed at Rs.3,73,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the appellant herein, the respondents have sought a reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhancement. The said reference culminated in LAC No.73/2015, whereby, the Trial Court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.20,85,000/per acre with statutory benefits.

¶45

¶46

MFA No. 8671 of 2017

¶47

Now the appellant contends that the Trial Court has

¶48

based its finding to arrive at a compensation of Rs.20,85,000/per acre, on a consent award passed in LAC No.244/2009 (wherein the value of the land was considered at Rs 25 lakhs per acre) and since the present notification was issued about 10 months prior to the said notification in LAC No.244/2009, reduction of 10% of the market value has been considered and whereby fixed the market value at Rs.20,85,000/- per acre. It is contended that the said procedure adopted by the Trial Court in considering the market value is erroneous since it could not have relied on the consent award passed in another case. Therefore, contending that the Trial Court has erred in arriving at a conclusion that the market value of Rs.20,85,000/-, the appellant approached this court.

¶49

On a perusal, para 29 in the impugned order reads as below:

¶50

"29. However also my predecessor in title fixed the value of land in LAC No.244/2009 to the extent of Rs.26,25,000/-. But herein the land of claimants was acquired in the year 2005 prior to the acquisition made in LAC NO.244/2009. Further as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 4147/2009 the Hon'ble High Court consider the 10%

¶51

¶52

MFA No. 8671 of 2017

¶53

appreciation in the sale price for the succeeding years. Accordingly, this court in LAC No.244/2009 consider the 10 % enhanced market value and add an amount of Rs.1,25,000/to determined compensation of Rs.25,00,000/and accordingly fix the value of Rs.26,25,000/- per acre. But herein the land was acquired on 9.8.2005 and land in Ex.P4 was acquired on 10.04.2007 and thereby it can be easily said that prior to acquisition of the land in Ex.P4, the land involved in this petition was acquired on 9.8.2005 and therefore it is just and necessary to reduce the said amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and accordingly the 10% depreciation is considered on Rs.25,00,000/- and totally after lapse of 20 months land in Ex.P4 was acquired. Therefore, the amount of Rs.4,15,000/- has to be reduced put of Rs.25,00,000/-. After deduction of said amount comes to Rs.20,85,000/- per acre."

¶54

The above recital in the impugned order clearly depict

¶55

that the Trial Court has based its finding on a consent award. There cannot be any doubt that the Trial Court had relied on the consent award passed by it in LAC No.244/2009 and thereafter, it reduced the market value by 10% considering that the notification was issued 10 months prior to the notification wherein the consent award has been passed.

¶56

It is pertinent to note that, the decision rendered by

¶57

the Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and others vs. N. Savitha¹ lays down that the consent award

¶58

1 2022 7 SCC 256

¶59

¶60

MFA No. 8671 of 2017

¶61

cannot be based for arriving at a market value. In para 5 of the

¶62

said judgment, the Apex Court has observed as below:

¶63

"5. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Ex.P.17 is a consent award. Therefore, the consent award ought not to have been relied upon and /or considered for the purpose of determining the compensation in case of another acquisition. In case of a consent award, one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consent award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to give a particular compensation. Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record. Therefore, the High Court has erred in determining the compensation @ Rs.40 Lakhs per acre relying upon the award Ex.P.17 in respect of the land which was for the lands acquired in the year 2011."

¶64

In view of the dictum of the Apex Court that the consent

¶65

award cannot be a basis for awarding or determining the compensation in other acquisitions, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record, the present appeal is also hit by the said observations made by the Apex Court. In the result, the Trial Court should have considered the other evidence to come to the conclusion about the market value than basing its finding on the conclusion in LAC No.244/2009. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is basically on a wrong notion that a

¶66

¶67

MFA No. 8671 of 2017

¶68

consent award could be relied for fixing the market value and as such, it do not stand for reason.

¶69

In view of these circumstances, we are left with no other

¶70

option than to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter to the Trial Court to consider the other evidence available on record to arrive at a proper market value of the land acquired by

¶71

the appellant herein. The Trial Court has to consider the other evidence and cannot base its finding on the consent award and therefore, we find that the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

¶72