Sumalatha Nath vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer

Appellants, being not satisfied with the determination of the market value of the land acquired by the respondent fixed by the reference court in LAC No. 35 of 1987, on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, by its judgment and award dated 21-6-2011.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The appellants are the legal heirs of one M.H. Nath, who was the owner of 2 acres 14 cents of land comprised in SY Nos. 30/7B and 30/8B of Kanakanady, Mangaluru taluk in Dakshina Kannada district. The said lands were acquired for the formation of a layout under the provisions of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976. The lands were notified for acquisition under preliminary notification dated 12-8-1981 and final notification came to be issued on 30-9-1982 followed by passing of an award by the land acquisition officer on 14-5-1987. fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 1,300/- per cent. Being not satisfied with the award of the land acquisition officer, reference was sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the court below for determination of the market value.

When the claim statement was filed, the claimants, considering the potentiality and the location of the land in question, requested the reference court to determine the market value at Rs. 15,000/- per cent. One Prakash Alva was examined as P.W. 1 and he relied upon Ex. P1 to 11. The reference court, considering the documents produced by the claimants, came to the conclusion that the market value as on the date of notification was Rs. 5,000/- per cent and thereafter deducted 33% thereof towards developmental charges and accordingly held that the claimants are entitled for Rs. 3,350/- per cent as market value. Therefore, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the same.

Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the reference court did not consider the evidence of P.W. 1 and the documents relied upon by him in proper perspective. According to him, the land in question is situated within the limits of Mangaluru city abutting the Mangaluru-Bengaluru NH-48, adjoining the Kanakanady hospital, which is known as Fr. Muller hospital, and the area is well developed having residential and commercial buildings, and there exist Kapitanio high school and Garodi temple. According to him, the land in question could be utilized for residential or commercial purpose as on the date of acquisition without any further investment, since about 600 feet width of the property is facing national highway and the land is flat and very easy to convert the same for residential or commercial purpose. According to him, the reference court did not consider the evidence of P.W. 1 in proper perspective and therefore requests the court to set aside the award and determine the market value of the property in question as sought for by the appellants.

Per contra, Sri Halesha R.G., learned counsel for the respondent submits that the reference court, based on the evidence of the claimants, has determined the market value and it does not call for any interference and therefore he requests the court to dismiss the appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by this court in this appeal is whether the determination of market value of the land in question by the reference court is just and proper or requires any enhancement?

The reference court does not dispute the fact that the property in question is situated abutting NH-48 leading from Bengaluru to Mangaluru and it is within the corporation limits of Mangaluru city. The claimants have relied upon Ex. P1 and 2, which are copies of sale deeds executed prior to the acquisition of the land in question. In the year 1981, the adjoining land has been sold at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per cent and thereafter, the area in and around the acquired land was further developed and on account of the same, there is further steep escalation of value of the properties in the vicinity.

We have also seen the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1. According to him, the land in question is abutting the national highway and situated within 500 meters from pump-well circle and one kilometers from Kanakanady hospital and also abutting Kapitanio high school and Garodi temple. He has also stated in his evidence that as on the date of notification, in front of the notified land, a bank was in existence and several plastic industries had come up, besides residential houses and that the land was very plain having advantage of facing about 600 feet towards national highway, which can easily be utilized for commercial activities. He has also relied upon Ex. P1 & 2 to show that properties abutting to the notified land were sold for a higher amount than the market value fixed by the land acquisition officer.

The evidence of P.W. 1 has not been seriously challenged by the respondent. The respondent has not let in any evidence separately, except cross-examining P.W. 1. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1, nothing is elicited to show that the land acquired was not a potential land to be utilized for commercial or residential purpose.

The reference court has not considered the evidence of P.W. 1 of properly. If the lands situated within a distance of 300 to 400 yards away from national highway were sold prior to the acquisition of the land in question at the rate of around Rs. 4000 per cent, in respect of a subsequent acquisition notification, the value of the land should be much more than the value shown in Ex. P1 and 2.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the value shown in Ex. P1 and 2 is not the actual price paid by the purchasers, since the normal practice would be to show lesser price to avoid payment of stamp duty, and therefore, he contends that as on the date of execution of Ex. P1 and 2, the actual market value of the land was much more than what has been shown in the documents. But, the court cannot accept such an argument, because we are governed by the terms of the registered documents.

Be that as it may, this court cannot lose sight of the situation of potentiality of the lands in question, which can be converted into residential and commercial purposes, considering the various developmental activities taken place in and around the entire land as on the date of acquisition. The court is also required to consider the fact that selling of property under Ex. P1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per cent is much prior to the acquisition of the lands in question, which are situated at a distance of 300 to 400 yards from the national highway. The land in question was facing the national highway to an extent of 600 feet in width.

Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the market value of the land in question could be higher than what is stated in Ex. P1 and 2. If it is so, we are of the view that the market value of the acquired land has to be fixed at Rs. 7,000/- per cent and 33% thereof should be deducted towards developmental charges, as it was not a converted land but an agricultural land at the time of acquisition and that the award depicts that the claimants were using the land for raising paddy crop and the land was a wet land and the acquiring body was required to invest money to develop the land. After deducting the same, the market value is determined at Rs. 4,666/- and rounded it off to Rs. 4,700/- per cent.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed in LAC No. 35 of 1987, on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru dated 21-6-2011 are hereby set aside, holding that the appellants-claimants are entitled for a compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,700/- per cent with all other statutory benefits. The appellants are also entitled to proportionate costs in this appeal.