Panduranga vs State of Karnataka

B.S. Patil, J.—Land of the appellant comprised in Sy. No. 39 was acquired for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board. Preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, ''the Act'') was issued on 22-11-1984. By a consent award passed, market value at Rs. 24,000/- per acre was fixed for the acquired land belonging to the appellant. As the award was a consent award, the matter attained finality. Subsequently, on 17-12-1992, by way of another preliminary notification, land comprised in Sy. No. 41 was notified for acquisition for the benefit of the KIADB. This was a converted land and an industry had been established there. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing market value of this land at Rs. 62,400/- per acre. On reference, Civil Court has enhanced the same to Rs. 7,40,520/-. On the basis of the said determination made by the Civil Court, appellant made a representation requesting the respondent to pay the same compensation at Rs. 7,40,520/- for his land. This request was not considered. Hence, the appellant filed writ petition before this Court.

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that appellant was not entitled to take advantage of the award made in favour of of the owner of Sy. No. 41 as the said land was acquired much later on 17-12-1992, whereas the appellant''s land had been acquired on 22-11-1984.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the entire materials on record, we find that there is no right vested in the appellant to seek parity of compensation as regards his land which has been acquired way back in the year 1984 on the basis of the determination of market value made in respect of Sy. No. 41 which was acquired by a preliminary notification issued after a gap of eight years on 17-12-1992. It is well-established that determination of market value of the acquired lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is pegged onto the date of preliminary notification. The nature of the land and its potentiality will have to be determined with reference to the date of preliminary notification. Having regard to the fact that there is a gap of eight years between the two preliminary notifications published, the appellant cannot seek award of compensation in respect of his land by referring to the market value fixed in respect of Sy. No. 41. What is worse in this case is that the award passed in respect of appellant''s land is a consent award but, so far as the land comprised in Sy. No. 41, the owner, having protested for the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, took the matter in reference to the Civil Court and the Civil Court has enhanced the market value subsequently. Therefore, there can be no comparison between the two sets of compensation awarded for the two lands.

Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.