- 1 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF APRIL, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 IN MFA NO.102248/2015 BETWEEN1. NALINI W/O MANJUNATH KAMAT, AGED ABOUT45YEARS, RESIDING AT C-BLOCK, S-3, ASHWAMEDHA CASTEL, HUBBALLI-580023, DIST DHARWAD. ...APPELLANT (By Sri. RAJESH MAHALE, Sri. S.V.SHASTRI, Sri. IRFAN JALGAR, Sri. ISMAIL JALGAR, AND Sri. VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADVOCATES) AND1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. 2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.-. 2 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. 4 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DHARWAD. 5 . EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.S KALASURMATH, HCGP) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54 (1) OF LA ACT1894 R/W.
ORDERXLI RULE1OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.87/2013 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AND PASS A
JUDGMENTAND AWARD AWARDING THE ADDITIONAL COMPESATION OF RS. 2,100/- PER SQ. FT. BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENTAND AWARD PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI IN LAC NO.87/2013 DATED2101.2015 TOGETHER WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AND ETC. IN MFA NO.103444/2016 BETWEEN1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARANTAKA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.-. 3 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, DHARWAD. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.V.S KALASURMATH, HCGP) AND1. SMT. NALINI W/O MANJUNATH KAMAT AGED ABOUT46YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O C-BLOCK, ASHWAMEDHA CASTLE, HUBBALLI-580023, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri. RAJESH MAHALE ADV. FOR Sri. S.V.SHASTRI, Sri. IRFAN JALGAR, Sri. ISMAIL JALGAR, AND Sri. VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADVOCATES) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI IN LAC.NO.87/2013 DATED2101.2015 AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENTAND AWARD DATED2101.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI IN LAC NO872013 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON1503.2023 FOR
JUDGMENTAND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K., J.
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016
JUDGMENTThese two appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed in LAC No.87/2013 dated 21.01.2015 passed by the by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge Hubballi (for short ’Reference Court’).
2. MFA No.102248/2015 is filed by the petitioner/appellant to modify the judgment and award passed in LAC No.87/2013 for enhancement of the award granted by the Reference Court and MFA No.103444/2016 is filed by the Government praying to set aside the judgment and award passed in LAC No.87/2013 by the Reference Court and thereby restore the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in award No.LAQ/CR/68/2012- 2013 dated 14.03.2013. Both appeals are filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short’ the Act’).
3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are that the appellant in MFA - 5 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 No.102248/2015 was the owner of the land measuring 2 acres 12 guntas comprised in R.S.No.34/2 of Mariyan Thimmasagar village, Hubballi taluk. The respondent No.2 in the appeal i.e. the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka took out Gazette Notification dated 22.11.2012 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’), proposing to acquire the entire extent of the land in R.S.No.34/2 i.e to the total extent of 5 acres 15 guntas for the purpose of construction of Hubballi Court Complex. The appellant filed objections for the said Gazette Notification for acquisition of 2 acres 12 guntas of her land in R.S.No.34/2 contending that she has no other properties and if the Government provides alternative sites, she has no objection to acquire her land. However, the respondents-Authorities without considering her objection issued final Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act by confirming the acquisition and published the said Notification in Karnataka Gazette on 14.02.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant filed W.P.No.77980/2013 before this Court challenging the said - 6 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 acquisition proceedings. However, subsequently, she withdraw the said writ petition.
4. Accordingly, the respondents-authorities issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and thereafter award was passed in respect of the acquired land measuring 5 acres 15 guntas and quantified the compensation at Rs.57,55,749/- in total. The appellant being the owner of the land to an extent of 2 acres 12 guntas got her share of Rs.25,50,197/- out of total award amount. Nevertheless, the appellant filed her objection with the second respondent and put forth her claim to receive the award, subject to her objections and received her part of the award amount. However, it is contended that the compensation awarded towards the acquisition of her land is very meager and as such she sent a reference application dated 21.09.2013 under Section 18(1) of the Act to the respondents-authorities as per Ex.P.11 requesting the respondents–Authorities to refer the matter to the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi for determination of - 7 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 correct market value and award compensation accordingly. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.3 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, Dharwad referred the matter to Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi under his letter dated 11.10.2013. Consequently, the said matter was referred and numbered as LAC No.87/2013 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi and the parties are notified. The respondents-Authorities filed their objection to the reference application.
5. Before the Reference Court, in order to prove the claim of the appellant, the appellant examined her husband, power of attorney holder, as PW.1 and produced 22 documents as per Ex.P1 to P.22. On behalf of the respondents, the Assistant Engineer of PWD, Hubballi is examined as RW.1 and produced one document as Ex.R1. The Reference Court after appreciation of the evidence available on record and hearing the respective counsel for the parties, passed the impugned judgment and award in LAC No.87/2013 dated 21.01.2015 allowing the claim of - 8 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 the appellant in part and awarded compensation of Rs.750/- per sq. ft. in respect of the acquired land of the petitioner with 12% interest per annum and solatium of 30% on the enhanced compensation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner/appellant filed MFA No.102248/2015 before this Court for further enhancement of compensation by modifying the judgment and award dated 21.01.2015.
6. Per contra, the respondents-revenue authorities also filed MFA No.103444/2016 praying to set aside the judgment and award dated 21.01.2015 in LAC No.87/2013 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi and thereby restore the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in award No.LAQ/CR/68/2012-13 dated 14.03.2013.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and learned HCGP for respondents- Authorities.-. 9 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant would contend that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court suffers from illegality and perversity and the same is passed contrary to the facts and law, as such is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel would further contend that the Reference Court has erred by not considering the evidence both oral and documentary placed before the Reference Court in support of her claim. The documents produced by her clearly depicts that the market value of the property according to the authority is more than Rs.5000/- per sq. ft. and there is no dispute in respect of the fact that the acquired land exists in the area within the limits of Hubballi-Dharwad Corporation and number of educational institutions, colleges are situated near the acquired land. He would further contend that there are number of residential layouts within the vicinity of the acquired land and surrounding premises have been fully developed and Hubballi main market, Railway station, old bus stand and new bus stand are within the distance of 1 km to 1.5 kms from the acquired land. Reference Judge - 10 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 totally failed to consider all these aspects and passed the impugned award by granting meager compensation to the petitioner / appellant being the owner of the said land. The counsel would further contend that Reference Court has committed an error in fixing the rate for acquired land at Rs.750/- per sq. ft. and further deducted towards the alleged development charges at the rate of 65% of award amount. According to the learned counsel, the acquired land is totally developed and acquired for the purpose of construction of Hubballi Court Complex, as such there is no question of deduction of development charges at 65% for an already developed land. Hence, he prays to modify the judgment and award dated 21.01.2015 in LAC No.87/2013 by the Reference Court and to enhance the compensation.
9. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court.-. 11 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 1. Himmat Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in (2013) 16 SCC392 2. Mohinder Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 8 SCC897 3. Bhimasha Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in 2008 10 SCC797 10. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently contended that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.LAQ/CR/68/2012-2013 dated 14.03.2013 does not suffer from any perversity or illegality since the Special Land Acquisition Officer after considering the documents produced by the claimants/appellants and also considering the valuation report as on the date of acquisition has rightly passed the award by fixing the reasonable compensation. Inspite of proper appreciation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court has modified the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced the compensation which is totally on higher side. According to learned HCGP the Reference Court failed - 12 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 to appreciate the evidence available on record and also the documents produced by the petitioner/appellant i.e. Exhibits P4 to P6 which are of the year 2011. Hence, he prays to set aside the judgment and award of the Reference Court in LAC No.87/2013 dated 21.01.2015 and to restore the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in award No.LAQ/CR/68/2012-13 dated 14.03.2013.
11. In support of his contention, learned HCGP has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court:
1. Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and Anr. V.Krishan Kumar and Ors. Reported in AIR2011SC2540
2) Vithal Rao and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2017) 8 SCC558
3) Union of India Vs. Dyagala Devamma and others reported in AIR2018SC3511 - 13 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016
4) Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2018) 12 SCC96
5) Bhuleram Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2014) 11 SCC307
6) Special Land Acquisition officer and another Vs. M.K.Rafiq Saheb reported in (2011) 7 SCC714 12. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record including trial Court records and also to the principles of law enunciated in the decisions relied on by both the counsels.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and having perused the documents, the point that would arise for our consideration is 1. Whether the Reference Court is justified in awarding the compensation of acquired land at Rs.750/- per sq. ft. and by deducting 65% towards the development charges of the acquired land?. - 14 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 14. This Court being Appellate Court, has carefully analyzed the evidence of witnesses examined before Reference Court. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 and the document produced in the evidence as per Ex.P2 i.e. the RTCs, it clearly depicts that the petitioner/appellant is the owner of the acquired land to the extent of 2 acres 12 guntas and it is also not in dispute that the acquired land is situated within the jurisdiction of Hubballi-Dharwad Corporation area where the acquired land is located, within the vicinity of Hubballi city and is suitable for both commercial and residential purposes. The RW-1 i.e. Assistant Engineer, PWD, Hubballi examined before the Reference Court on behalf of the respondent-State, has categorically admitted in his cross examination that the acquired land exists just 30mtrs away from Hubballi- Dharwad main road and near to colleges, bank and commercial establishments of the Hubballi city and acquired land comes within CDP area. Further, he also admitted that the acquired land is about 1½ Kms from central bus stand, Hubballi and 2 Kms from New bus - 15 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 stand, Hubbali and 5 Kms away from the Airport, Hubballi. Thus, by perusal of the evidence of RW-1, it can be easily concluded that the acquired land is having non-agricultural potentiality and the same cannot be used for agricultural purpose. The documents produced before the Reference Court clearly depicts that the acquired land is having high potentiality, for both commercial and residential purposes. It is also not in dispute that the land is acquired for the purpose of construction of Hubballi Court complex.
15. It is settled principle of law that while awarding compensation in land acquisition cases, the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the present case, land is acquired for the purpose of construction of Court complex.
16. The Reference Court awarded the compensation by considering the documents produced by the petitioner/appellant in MFA No.102248/2015 as per Ex.P4- sale deed dated 19.07.2013 pertaining to the residential sites existing at Unkal village situated adjacent to the - 16 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 acquired land of the petitioner. The said sale deed is produced for the purpose of comparable market value. By perusal of the said sale deed, the same pertains to a residential site which measures 18170 Sq.fts. The market rate is fixed for the said residential site at Rs.6,41,00,500/-(Rupees Six crores, Forty one lakh, Five hundred only) As such, the market value per sq. ft. comes around to Rs.3,528-00. Nevertheless, the said property is within a totally developed area. The City Municipal Corporation had allotted CTS Number to the said property.
17. One more document produced and relied by the petitioner for comparison is Ex.P5 i.e. the sale deed dated 03.08.2011 and the same is pertaining to industrial site with sheds, situated at Maritimmasagar village i.e. adjacent to the land of the petitioner/appellant. By perusal of the said sale deed, the same is executed between its owner and private limited company for industrial purpose. There are industrial sheds existing in the property. The said property totally measures 2,82,330 sq. fts., and the - 17 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 sale consideration of the said property mentioned in the sale deed is Rs.56,46,60,000/-. If the same is divided from total extent of the land i.e. 2,82,330 sq. fts., it comes to Rs.2,000/- per sq. ft.
18. One more document produced and relied by the petitioner is Ex.P6- sale agreement dated 06.09.2011 pertaining to the site formed at Marithimmasagar village, which in total measures 1200 sq.ft. The sale consideration fixed for the said site is Rs.29,40,000/-, if the same is divided from the total measurement i.e. 1200 sq. fts. it comes to Rs.2,450/- per sq. ft.
19. However, by perusal of the judgment impugned herein, the reference Court neither considered the market rate of the properties mentioned in Ex.P4, P5 or P6 while granting the compensation to the acquired land of the petitioner nor relied on any other document including the Sub-Registrar value of the property at the relevant point of time. Strangely, the Reference Court though initially arrived at a conclusion by fixing the market rate at - 18 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 Rs.1,088/- per sq, ft, later awarded Rs.750/- per sq. feet without assigning any proper reason to that effect.
20. On perusal of the sale deeds of the properties situated in the vicinity having comparable benefits and advantages, it gives a reasonable fair and ready method of comparing the market value. The documents at Ex.P4 to P6 produced by the petitioner/appellant clearly depicts that the said properties are non-agricultural residential properties. As for as Ex.P4 site is concerned, the corporation already granted CTS number. More over there are three sites in total measuring 18170 sq. fts. Though the sale consideration is fixed at Rs.3,528/- per sq. ft. as per Ex.P.4, the same cannot be considered for the purpose of fixing the compensation to acquired land of the petitioner since acquired land measures 2 acres 12 guntas which equals to 100188 sq. fts. Moreover, the acquired land is not a residential property.
21. One more document relied on by the petitioner/appellant for comparison as per Ex.P6 is - 19 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 concerned, the same is a residential site, in total measuring 1,200 sq. fts. Though the sale consideration for the said site is fixed at Rs.2,450/- per sq. ft. as per the settled law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Himmat Singh and others (stated supra) the market rate of the small site cannot be considered for the larger extent of property while awarding compensation for acquired lands.
22. By perusal of Ex.P5 the other document produced by the petitioner for comparison, is a sale deed in respect of large extent of property which in total measured 282330 sq. fts. and the said land is very near to the acquired land of the petitioner. Though some Industrial sheds are situated in the land, fact remains, the extent of land is comparable and the same is situated next to petitioners land. The sale consideration of the said land is around to Rs.2,000/- per sq. ft. The petitioner/appellant’s land also measures larger extent of 100188 sq. ft. and fully developed land with high non- agricultural potentiality. Hence, in our considered opinion, for awarding - 20 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 compensation to the petitioner’s land, the document produced by the petitioner as per Ex.P.5 can be considered.
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Vs. T. Adhinarayana Setty reported in AIR1959SC) 429 laid down the law in respect of the methodology of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) which are: (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. These methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive as near as possible an estimate of the market value. In arriving to a reasonably correct market value, it may be necessary to take even two or all of those Page 10 methods into account inasmuch - 21 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 as the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentially nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined.” Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Land Acquistion Officier Vs. M.K.Rafiq Saheb reported in (2011) 7 SCC714held that “24. It may also be noticed that in the normal course of events, it is hardly possible for a claimant to produce sale instances of large tracks of land. The sale of land containing large tracks are generally very far and few. Normally, the sale instances would relate to small pieces of land. This limitation of sale transaction cannot operate to the disadvantage of the claimants. Thus, the Court should look into sale instances of smaller pieces of land while applying reasonable element of deduction.” Hence, by considering the above factum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case on hand, as admitted by RW.1-witness examined on behalf of the respondent- Government, he admitted in his cross examination that land in question is totally developed land and the acquired land is having good potential value. More over, the land is - 22 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 acquired for the purpose of construction of Court complex, there is no such requirement of forming a layout, forming of roads and living open places and waiting for purchasers etc. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors. The subject land has more positive factors than the negative factors since the same is situated within the jurisdiction of Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation and fully developed piece of land and being close proximity to the already developed commercial and residential areas. Hence, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.750/- per sq. ft. to the acquired land of the petitioner is hopelessly on lower side and a just and reasonable - 23 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 compensation could be awarded for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq. ft.
24. The next aspect of the matter is that whether the reference Court is right in deducting 65% towards development charges. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nirmal Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana Through Collector reported in (2015) 2 SCC160held that when it comes to deduction for development of land, it can sway back and forth and can only be determined after carefully considering the factors such as size of land, nearness to developed area etc. For the said purpose of development charge and determining the market value of the land, the Hon’ble Apex Court determined the various positive and negative factors as under: Positive factors Negative factors i Smallness of size i. largeness of area ii Proximity to a road ii. situation in the interior at a distance from the road iii Frontage on a road iii. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.-. 24 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 iv Nearness to developed area iv. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up v Regular shape v. remoteness from developed locality vi Level vis-à-vis land under vi. some special acquisition disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser vii Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage It is further held in paragraph 20 of the above said judgment : “ Before we determine the extent of deductions to be allowed on the market value of the acquired land, we must take note of the following details; firstly, the acquired land is mostly agricultural in nature and vacant at the moment; secondly, the determination of the market value of the acquired land based on the sale instances in relation to small pieces of land situated near the acquired land as produced by the land owners; thirdly, the well settled principle by this Court in a catena of cases that larger portions of land incur higher developmental costs compared to smaller portions of land.” - 25 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 25. Therefore, by perusal of evidence of RW-1, he has categorically admitted in his cross examination that the land in question is totally developed land. The Reference Court has also opined that the acquired land is having good potential value. But at the same time, the Reference Court come to the conclusion that more investments are required to develop the land and as such held that 60% has to be deducted towards development cost, in addition to that, 5% has to be deducted towards waiting period as per judgment reported in (2012) SCC390 Thus, total development charge deduction is fixed at 65%. In our considered opinion, the Reference Court has erred in deducting 65% towards development charges. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Himmat Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in (2013) 16 SCC392wherein, laid the law in respect of awarding compensation and deduction for the development charges. Para Nos.18 and 30 of the above said judgment are extracted below: - 26 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 “18. Shri U. U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that the Reference Court and the High Court committed serious error by excluding various sale instances only on the ground that the contents thereof were not proved by examining the buyer and the seller. Shri Lalit invited the Court’s attention to Section 51-A of the Act and the judgments in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC530 Cement Corporation of India v. Purya (2004) 8 SCC270and Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat and another v. Madhubai Gobarbhai and another (2009) 15 SCC125and argued that the view expressed by the Reference Court and approved by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on the admissibility and relevance of the copies of the registered sale deeds is liable to be overturned. Shri Lalit further argued that the Reference Court and the High Court committed serious error by not taking into consideration the highest value reflected in the sale deeds Exhibits P4 and P5 for the purpose of determination of compensation. In support of this argument, Shri Lalit relied upon the judgments in Rao Bahadur, Collector of Madras 1969 1 MLJ45 State of Punjab v. Hansraj (1994) 5 SCC734 Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa (2010) 13 SCC710 Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others v. State of Punjab and others (2012) 5 SCC432 30. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally 1/3rd deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the land is acquired - 27 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat and Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu had noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes, deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and in view of the availability of basic civic amenities such as school, bank, police station, water supply, electricity, highway, transport, post, petrol pump, industry, telecommunication and other businesses, the claim of compensation should reasonably be fixed @ Rs 250 per sq m with the deduction of 20%. The appellant shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits such as solatium, interest, etc. etc. The appellants also will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing on the said land in a sum of Rs.59,192 as fixed. IA No.1 of 2006 for substitution is ordered as prayed for.
26. The learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the State was unable to point to any such evidence regarding the proposed development works. We cannot ignore the fact that the land is acquired for the purpose of construction of Court complex and land under acquisition was situated in - 28 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 the area which was adjacent to the land already developed and within the Hubballi city. There is no question of further development. The land already has road access and drainage facility.
27. Though the learned HCGP placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and Anr. V.Krishan Kumar and Ors. Reported in AIR2011SC2540 the value of small developed plots showed to be the basis for appropriate deductions will have to be made towards the area to be used for roads, park and leveling of road etc. The case on hand differs from the facts and circumstances of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, since the land in question is not small site and measures 2 acres 12 guntas. The other judgments relied by the learned HCGP are also relates to similar set of facts and dictum laid down in those cases do not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, in our considered opinion, the Reference - 29 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 Court erred in fixing deduction of development charges at the rate of 65% for the acquired land. By careful perusal of the material and evidence available on record and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above stated judgments, we are of the opinion that the rate of compensation fixed supra i.e. at the rate of Rs.2000/- per sq. ft must be subject to deductions towards development charges that will have to be incurred by the respondent-State. However, much development is not required for the said land, since the land is acquired for the purpose of construction of Court complex and already developed piece of land as discussed supra, we may allow 20% towards development charges on the market value of the acquired land fixed by this Court which would work out to Rs.1,600/- per sq. ft. after deduction.
28. In view of the above discussion, we modify the compensation for the acquired land of the petitioner/appellant at Rs.2,000/- per sq. ft. with a - 30 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 deduction at the rate of 20% towards development charges which would meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered and the order of the Reference Court is modified.
29. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDERAppeal filed by the appellant in MFA No.102248/2015 is allowed in part. The appeal filed by the respondent-State in MFA No.103444/2016 is dismissed. The judgment and award passed in LAC No.87/2013 dated 21.01.2015 passed by the by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge Hubballi is hereby modified, by fixing the fair market value of the property at Rs.2000/- per sq. ft. and deduction of 20% is allowed towards development charges.-. 31 - MFA No.102248/2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NO.103444/2016 We find no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the Reference Court insofar as interest and solatium are concerned. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE HMB