Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others vs B.R. Shrinivasa Setty and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 22597/2013 and 22598/2013 are filed with delay of 126 and 149 days respectively. Applications are filed seeking condonation of delay.

Having perused the reasons indicated, the delay is condoned. I.A. 1/2013 in both the appeals are allowed.

The appeals are taken up for consideration with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

In these three appeals, the appellant/acquiring authority is assailing the common judgment and separate awards passed in LAC No. 12/2005, 13/2005 and 15/2005. The Reference Court on considering the contentions put forth, has enhanced the market value to Rs. 10,000/- per cent in respect of the acquired lands. The land bearing Sy. No. 9/B/1 measuring 4 acres 15 cents in LAC No. 12/2005, the land bearing Sy. No. 9/C/1 measuring 3 acres 9 cents in LAC No. 13/2005 and land bearing Sy. No. 9-A/1-A measuring 2 acres 26 cents in LAC No. 15/2005, situate in Kudligi village are the subject matter in these three appeals. The said lands were acquired under the notification dated 13/04/2012 for establishing a trade terminal center. Along with the said three reference cases, the reference sought by another land owner in LAC No. 14/2005 had also been referred to the reference Court. The reference in LAC No. 14/2005 has however been rejected by the reference Court. We have referred to that aspect of the matter only to indicate that in the case relating to LAC No. 14/20015, the land Acquisition Officer himself had awarded the compensation at Rs. 15,246/- per cent which has been taken as the basis by the reference Court to come to the conclusion with regard to the appropriate market value to be determined and paid to the land owners in respect of the lands which are the subject matter of these appeals. The land owners had contended that the lands in question had lost their agricultural character and were essentially commercial lands which had immense potential for the said purpose.

The learned Government Advocate would however contend that the lands which were the subject matter in LAC No. 14/2005 were lands which had been converted for non-agriculture purpose and therefore the same cannot be made comparable to the lands which are subject matter in these appeals. In that light it is contended that the market value as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the said land could not have been made as the basis for determining the market value in respect of the lands which are the subject matter herein.

Though such contention is advanced by the learned Government Advocate, what cannot be lost sight is that the respondents herein were in fact before this Court at the first instance in MFA No. 20054/2008 disposed of on 15/12/2011 and in MFA No. 20055/2008 and 20056/2009 disposed of on 24/02/2012. In the said appeals, the land owners had raised a grievance with regard to the non consideration of their case by the reference Court to award appropriate market value. Division Bench of this Court by the said order dated 15/12/2011 while remanding the matter has arrived at a categorical conclusion that the acquired lands are non-agricultural lands and have lost their agricultural character and it is suitable for commercial exploitation. In that view it had been directed that the reference Court has to consider the market value of the lands acquired based on its potentiality and considering the topography of the lands on the date of the preliminary notification and the development that had place in the vicinity. Having observed so, the matter had been remanded to the reference court for consideration of these aspects of the matter. Therefore insofar as the character of the lands, the same has attained finality in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court. Consideration, therefore, is as to whether the reference Court after remand, made an appropriate consideration before arriving at its conclusion.

In that regard a perusal of the judgment passed by the reference court more particularly with reference to the observations in paras 20 and 21 thereof would disclose that the reference court in addition to taking note of the market value as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the land which were the subject matter in LAC No. 14/2005 has referred to the evidence that had been tendered by the claimants through PW-1 to PW-3. While referring to the oral evidence the document relied upon has been adverted to and the price for which the land was being sold in the vicinity has been taken note of. With reference to the evidence of PW-4 who is the chief Officer of TMC, Ex. P-11 was taken into consideration and in that light the topography and the location of the area was taken into consideration to come to the conclusion that the land is situate in an area which had minimal commercial potentiality. It is in that view the reference Court has thereafter not only kept in view the sale deed which were marked as Exs. P-3 to P-5 but has also take into consideration the market value that had been determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of one item of land which no doubt had been converted for non agricultural purpose at Rs. 15,246/- per cent.

Having considered that aspect of the matter, the reference Court in fact taking note of the situation that there were some difference with regard to the said land and the lands herein which were considered as having non-agricultural potential has thereafter deducted 33% towards developmental charges. The learned Government Advocate, would, however, contend that the deduction as made is not sufficient since in the said case, the extent involved was small while in the case of the respondents herein large extent of lands had been acquired. Though such contention is urged, what is necessary to be noticed is that the acquisition in the instant case is for Trade Terminal Centre. If it is kept in view, the entire lands would be made use of by acquiring authority. If this aspect of the matter is also kept in view, the deduction of 33% as made by the reference Court is justified.

Therefore when all the relevant parameters has been kept in view by the reference court and the market value has been determined and the amount as determined is in a similar manner as has done by the land Acquisition officer in respect of one item of the land, merely because, the amount has been determined by the reference Court on such basis that in itself cannot be held to be erroneous. The said conclusion in any event would only relate to the total extent of the land as has been done by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the land for which he has awarded the market value on such basis. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the reference Court.

The appeals being devoid of merits stand disposed of.