Vijayalakshmi P. Hegde vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.S.T.P.P.

K.L. Manjunath, J.—MFA Nos. 6255/2011, 6254/2011 and 6257/2011 are filed by the claimants being not satisfied with the determination of the market value by the III Additional Senior Judge, Mangalore Taluk, D.K., in LAC No. 65/1992 and connected matter dated 25.02.2011. MFA Nos. 3541/2012, 3542/2012 and 3543/2012 are filed by the beneficiary, M/s. Konkana Railway Corporation, challenging the same judgment and award contending that the determination of the market value of the Reference Court is on higher side. Therefore, all these matters are heard together.

Different extents of land in Iddya Village, Hosabettu Village, Chelairu Village and Kulai Village were notified for acquisition for the formation of Konkan Railway lane. An award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer determining the market value at Rs. Two Lakhs per acre for the wet land and Rs. One Lakh Eighty Thousand for the dry and land. Being not satisfied with the same, on the request of the land losers, the matters were referred to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for determination of the market value.

Before the Reference Court, in all, 5 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the land losers and in LAC 65/92, they have been relied upon Exs. P1 to P24, in LAC 75/92 claimants have relied upon Exs. P25 to P41, in LAC 76/92, the claimants have relied upon Ex. P1 to P4 and claimants in LAC No. 86/92 the have relied upon Exs. P1 to P4 and claimants in LAC 51/92 have relied upon Ex. P1 original partition deed dated 26.07.2001. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer or the Beneficiary, no evidence was let in.

The Reference Court considering the evidence let in by the claimants determined market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per cent by its judgment and award dated 25.02.2011. Therefore the present appeals are filed by the claimants as well as by the beneficiary - M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation. Since all these appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award, these matters are heard together.

Mr. H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal did not consider Ex. P15 appropriately. According to him under Ex. P. 15, an agricultural land arising out of the very same land was sold by one of the claimants for a sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- per cent to an extent of 6 cents of land and therefore, the Tribunal was required to consider the cost of escalation and deduct nominal cost towards development activities since the land is situated in a well developed potential area surrounded by Mangalore Chemical Fertilizers factory, APMC Yard of Surathkal, Fish market, vegetable market and timber yard, IIT, Surathkal and all other important educational institutions in and around and very nearer to National Highway No. 17 and in around, several residential apartments have come up. He further submits that within few yards from the acquired land, the Konkan Railway has constructed the railway station in Surathkal. Therefore, he contends that the determination of the market value by the Reference Court is on lower side.

Per contra, Mr. Madhushdhan R. Naik, learned Senior counsel appearing for Konkan Railways contends that the determination of the market value by the Reference Court is bad in law.

According to him on account of the documents relied upon by the claimants as per Exs. P16, 17 and 18, the land value as on the date of acquisition was very very less. Since the lands acquired/notified are all agricultural wet lands, the cost of development will be high and this Hon''ble court in similar circumstances in MFA No. 3567/1998 C/W 3568/1998 in respect of the lands acquired in the same notification, has given guidelines in the manner in which the development cost has to be effected. Therefore, he requests this court to reduce the market value and dismiss the appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The only point to be considered by us in this appeal is:

"Whether the determination of the market value by the Reference Court is based on a proper appreciation of evidence and whether the same requires to be interfered with?"

On perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court, it is not in dispute that the land is situated in a well developed area and very near to Mangalore City Corporation and now it comes within the Corporation limits. It is also not in dispute that the date on which the land was notified it was not within the corporation limits but it was in the outskirts of the Mangalore City Corporation and adjoining to the municipal council of Surthkal. It very near to National Highway No. 17 and adjoining to Mangalore Chemicals Factory, APMC Yard, Harbour, markets and several colleges had come up as on the date of notification. Since the Reference Court has not considered the potential value of the property, and if it was not acquired, it could have been easily used for residential, industrial or commercial activities. But the fact remains that the claimants have relied upon the sale deeds of the year 1984 to 85. The Reference Court also not considered the actual development cost to be deducted while determining market value of an extent of agricultural land, the same has to be considered as a potential value. The Land Acquisition Officer has also not let in evidence in regard to the cost involved for developmental activities considering the nature of the property. So also the claimants have also not examined any witnesses or produced any additional documents in support of their claim. In the circumstances, it will be difficult for us to hold what would have been the actual market value of the lands acquired on the date of notification.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that in the best interest of both the parties, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court has to be set aside and the matter is required to be reconsidered by the Reference Court by giving a reasonable opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence and to produce additional documents if, any.

Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed. The judgment and award dated 25.02.2011 passed by the Reference Court in LAC Nos. 65/92, 75/92, 66/93, 76/92, 86/92 and 51/92 are set aside.

Any amount of compensation, already received by the claimants would be subject to the outcome of the decision by the Reference Court afresh.

We direct the Reference Court to dispose of the matter by giving reasonable opportunity for both the parties within a period of six months from today.

All the parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 16th February, 2015.

In view of order of remand, the appellants are entitled for refund of court fee in accordance with law.