State of Karnataka vs Lakshminarasimha

N.K. Patil, J.—This Appeal by the appellant State of Karnataka, by the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Kollegal, is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 5th June 2012 passed in L.A.C. No. 3/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chamarajanagar, on the ground that, the market value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 247/- per Sq. Ft. in respect of the land in question with all statutory benefits u/s 23 of L.A. Act, is on higher side and is liable to be reduced.

The brief facts of the case are: land bearing Sy. No. 32/1 measuring 19 guntas out of 2 acres 13 guntas, situated at Chamarajanagar Town, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagar Taluk, belonging to the claimant has been notified and acquired by the appellant for the benefit of 2nd respondent, for the purpose of formation of Railway Broad gauge, vide Preliminary Notification dated 11/01/2007 issued u/s 4(1). of L.A. Act, followed by Final Notification dated 19.11.2007 issued u/s 6(1) of L.A. Act. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, after issuing notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, calling objections and claim petition, has passed the award on 30/8/2009 fixing the market value at Rs. 31/- per Sq. Ft. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant has filed an application u/s 18(1) of L.A. Act, seeking enhancement of compensation, with a request to refer the same to the jurisdictional Court. Accordingly, the said application was referred to the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chamarajanagar and numbered as LAC No. 3/2011. The Reference Court, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, and having regard to the nature and potentiality of the land in question and the purpose for which it has been notified and acquired, has allowed the said petition and fixed the market value at Rs. 247/- per sq. ft. with all statutory benefits as envisaged u/s 23 of L.A. Act.. The said enhancement made by the Reference Court is on higher side and is liable to be reduced the appellant has presented this appeal.

We have heard learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant and learned counsel for respondents.

The principal submission canvassed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant, at the out set is, the Reference Court has committed an error, much less material irregularity in fixing the market value of the land in question at Rs. 247/- per Sq. Ft. placing reliance on the sale deed of the year 2006 as per Ex. P1 which is on higher side and disproportionate to the value of the said land. Further, she submitted that, the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the land in question is an agricultural land and it does not have any commercial value and no credible documents have been produced by the claimant to prove the same. Therefore, she submitted that the reasoning given by the References Court for fixing the market value at Rs. 247/- per sq. ft. is not sustainable and is liable to be reduced by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference is just and proper and after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also taking into consideration the nature of soil, its potentiality and therefore, it does not call for interference.

The learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent, submitted that the market value fixed by the Reference Court is on higher side and the same is liable to be reduced reasonably. Further, he submits that he concur with the submissions made by learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference Court is liable to be modified by reducing the market value of the land in question reasonably.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the materials available on file, including the impugned judgments and award passed by the Reference Court, it emerges that, the land in question belonging to the claimant situated at Chamarajanagar Town has been notified and acquired by the appellant for the benefit of the 2nd respondent for formation of Railway Broad gauge. The Land Acquisition Officer, after due procedures as envisaged under L.A. Act has passed the award fixing the market value at Rs. 31/- per sq. ft. Being aggrieved by the same, claimant has filed an application u/s 18(1) of L.A. Act for enhancement, which was referred to the jurisdictional Reference Court and numbered as LAC No. 3/2011. The Reference Court, has allowed the said petition, fixing the market value at Rs. 247/- per sq. ft. with all statutory benefits as envisaged u/s 23 of L.A. Act. The submission made by learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant as stated supra, cannot be accepted at this stage, for the reason that, the Reference Court, placing reliance on Ex. P1 and 2, taking into consideration the potentiality of the land in question and also taking into consideration the development that took place in and around the said land and after assigning cogent and valid reasons in paras-9, 10 and 11 of its judgment, has justified in fixing the market value at Rs. 247/- per sq. ft. The reasoning given by the Reference Court in paras 9. 10 and 11 of its judgment is in strict consonance with the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Therefore, we do not find any error or arbitrariness in the same since the claimant is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as envisaged under Article 300-A of Constitution of India as he has lost his value land for the public purpose. Nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Taking all these factors into consideration, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed.

It is needless to clarify that, appellant to ensure that the compensation amount shall be deposited expeditiously.

In view of the dismissal of the main appeal on merits, the prayer sought by the appellant in I.A. No. 2/2012 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed of as having become infructuous.

Learned counsel Sri. N.S. Sanjay Gowda, is permitted to file vakalath for R2.