SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. SIDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board are directed against judgments and decrees of the High Court of Karnataka rendered in their appeals filed under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( "the LA Act". Since the appeals filed in the High Court were directed against the judgments and decrees of the Court of Civil Judge, Belgaum rendered on references made to it under Section 18 of the LA Act based on common evidence adduced in them, these appeals could conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Lands comprised in various survey numbers of Yamunapur, Kakati, Kangrali B.K., Kanbargi villages of Belgaum Taluka were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of industries under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 - "the KIAD" Act by a notification published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 4-9-1969. The lands proposed to be so acquired were 300 acres and formed a large block. The State Government negotiated with the owners of the said lands for settling the compensation payable to them for their acquired lands. As a result, the owners of 240 acres of lands entered into an agreement with the State Government to receive compensation for their lands at the rate of Rs. 4.000/- an acre, as provided for under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. Those owners of the lands also received compensation payable for their acquired lands accordingly. Since the owners of remaining 60 acres of lands did not agree with the State Government in the matter of amount of compensation to be received for their lands, the Land Acquisition Officer - "the LAO" had to have recourse to provisions of the LA Act for determining the amount of compensation payable to them for their lands as the KIAD Act required the application of the provisions of the LA Act for the purpose. The LAO who, therefore, issued notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act to such owners, and held an inquiry as to the amount of compensation payable to them for their lands, made an award under Section 11 of the LA Act determining compensation payable for such lands. The compensation granted under that award to the owners of 60 acres of lands was based on the market value determined at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- an acre for agricultural lands and at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- an acre for non-agricultural lands. But, the owners of the said 60 acres of lands, who did not accept the said award, made applications to the LAO under Section 18 of the LA Act, and sought the making of references to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation payable for their lands. The Civil Court which received those references, registered them as land acquisition cases and held an enquiry thereon. However, since the parties adduced common evidence in that enquiry as regards the market value of the lands of the owners-claimants in those cases, the Civil Court on consideration of such common evidence rendered judgments and decrees in those cases determining the market value of about 60 acres of lands concerned at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per gunta, i.e., Rs. 60,000/- an acre. But, those judgments and decrees made by the Civil Court in the said land acquisition cases were appealed against by the LAO and the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board - "the Board" by preferring appeals under Section 54 of the LA Act. Thereupon, the High Court by its judgments and decrees made in those appeals reduced the market value of the acquired lands to Rs. 1,300/- per gunta, i.e., Rs. 52,000/- an acre and Rs. 900/- per gunta, i.e., Rs. 36,000/- an acre. The LAO and the Board, who were not satisfied with the reduction in the market value of 60 acres of lands made by the High Court by its judgments and decrees rendered in those appeals, have filed the present appeals by special leave seeking the setting aside of the judgments and decrees of the Civil Court as well as of the High Court and dismissal of the land acquisition cases by rejecting the reference made to the Civil Court.

(3.) Shri S. S. Javali, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation received by the owners of four-fifth the area of acquired lands (240 acres) pursuant to an agreement entered into with the State Government, as provided for under Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, when had made the LAO to determine the market value payable to the remaining owners of one-fifth area of the acquired lands by his award made under Section 11 of the LA Act, the Civil Court and the High Court had acted illegally in overlooking such award and determining the market value of one-fifth the area of the acquired lands (60 acres) on the basis of the price supposed to have fetched by the sale deed dated 13-3-1969 (Ex. P-3), relating to sale of small bit of about 3 guntas of lands situated away from the acquired lands and on Ex.P-7, the report of the valuation of acquired lands made by a retired engineer, PW-2 based on the price supposed to have been fetched under Ex.P-3. On the other hand, Shri E.C. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 2589-91 of 1994 contended that the acquired lands of the respondent concerned in each of those appeals had since been situated next to the National Highway, they had a very high potential value for building purposes and hence it cannot be said that the High Court was unjustified in determining the compensation of those lands at a rate higher than that determined by the LAO of other lands. He further contended that in the absence of non-availability of sale deeds relating to larger extents of lands on the basis of which determination of the market value of the respondents' acquired lands could have been made, the High Court was justified in placing reliance on the value supposed to have been fetched by sale of 3 guntas of land under Ex.P-3 and the report of the valuer (Ex. P-7) based on such sale and hence the judgments and decrees of the High Court appealed against do not call for interference by this Court.