AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellant/beneficiary is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 20th April, 2012, passed in LAC No. 30/2000, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & C.J.M. Mangalore, (for short, ''Reference Court''), determining the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per cent, with all statutory benefits, envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
The appellant has filed this appeal, seeking reduction of compensation determined by the Reference Court, on the ground that the market value determined by it is exorbitant and disproportionate to the value of the land in question.
The brief facts of the case are that, the land bearing Sy. No. 3-2A2, 200-1E4, measuring 0.52.5 cents and 0.09.7 cents situate at Padavu, Mangalore Taluk came to be notified and acquired vide Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Karnataka gazette dated 16th July, 1998, followed by final declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, published in the official gazette dated 22nd July, 1999, for the purpose of construction of Water Tank. After issuing notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, calling for objections from the notified khatedars/owners, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 17th July, 2000, fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per cent to the lands situated in interior area and Rs. 17,000/- per cent for the lands situated nearby the main road. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''Act'') seeking reference before the jurisdictional Reference Court, for enhancement of compensation. The said application was numbered as L.A.C. No. 30/2000, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM. Mangalore.
The said matter had come up for consideration before the Reference Court on 20th April, 2012. The Reference Court, in turn, after assessing the oral evidence of PW 1 and documentary evidence at Exs. P1 to P4, relying upon Ex. P3, sale deed, other relevant material available on file and also taking into consideration the nature of soil, potentiality of the land, nearness to the main road and also the fact that the acquired land comes with the compact block, allowed the same in part, re-determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per cent with all statutory benefits as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Act. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation, the appellant/beneficiary has filed this appeal seeking reduction of compensation, on the ground that the compensation awarded by Reference Court is exorbitant, excessive and on the higher side.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent, for quite some time.
The principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for appellant at the outset is that, the Reference Court has committed a grave error, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, in re-determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per cent, placing reliance on Ex. P3, sale deed, without giving any deduction towards development charges. He further submitted that the compensation awarded is disproportionate to the value of the land, as the acquisition of the land in question is of the year 1998. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that, the impugned judgment and award passed by Reference Court is liable to be modified by reducing the compensation.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for claimant, inter alia sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Reference Court, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also taking into consideration the potentiality of land, nature of soil, geographic location and also purpose for which the lands are notified and acquired etc and also the fact that, in and around the land acquired, lot of development has taken place. Hence, interference in the same, at this stage, is uncalled for.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Reference Court, it emerges that, the land in question has been notified and acquired for the purpose of construction of Water Tank, to provide drinking water to the Mangalore Town, which is obligatory on the part of the beneficiary to provide the minimum basic amenity to the citizens/residents of the said town. The land in question was notified and acquired during the year 1998, vide preliminary Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act followed by final declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following due procedure, has passed the award, awarding compensation of Rs. 15,000/- per cent to the lands situated in interior area and Rs. 17,000/- per cent for the lands situated nearby the main road, taking into consideration the nature of soil, suitability of land, potentiality of the land, geographic location, development that has taken place in and around the acquired land and also the fact that the said land comes within the compact block. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant has filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Act, seeking reference. The Reference Court, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and relying upon the sale deed at Ex. P3, determined the market value of the lands in question at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per cent in respect of the acquired land, with all benefits envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Act.
It is pertinent to note that, the surrounding area of the acquired land has been well developed and that the acquired land comes within the compact block. Further, it is a fact that the Land Acquisition Officer, City Corporation, Mangalore has opined that the compensation may be awarded between Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- in respect of the acquired land. It is further significant to note that the acquired land comes within the municipal area and the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). Considering all these aspects of the matter, we do not find any error or illegality as such committed by the Reference Court in relying upon Ex. P3, sale deed and determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 50,000/- per cent. The same being just and proper, interference at this stage, in respect of acquisition of land which is of the year 1998, is unwarranted.
Therefore, having regard to the totality of the case on hand, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.