SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. S.KUMARASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Reference Court. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned judgment, few facts need mention, which are stated infra:

(2.) The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) is a statutory body established under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1996 with an object of promoting the establishment and orderly development of industrial area. While invoking the powers under Sections 28(1) to 28(8) of the Act, the State Government acquires the land and hands over the same to the Board for setting up Industrial estates. The lands situated in Bythanahalli Village, Mysore District was required for development of the industrial area. The provisions contained in Section 28(1) of the Act were invoked and a preliminary notification dated 25.10.1996 was issued. The aforesaid notification included land measuring 2 acres 8 1/2 guntas in Sy.No.421 of Tandavapura Village, which is subject matter of this appeal. A final notification was issued on 06.11.1996 and an award was passed on 29.04.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.56,684/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide judgment dated 04.07.2011 awarded a sum of Rs.26,55,086/- per acre as compensation.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent had placed reliance on Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, which are the sale deeds of sites, which are not situate adjacent to subject land. It is further submitted that value of a residential site cannot be compared with the land acquired by respondent No.2 for industrial purposes in acres. It is also submitted that while determining the market value of the property acquired for industrial purposes appropriate deductions should have been made. It is further submitted that the reference court grossly erred in making Ex.P8 the basis for assessing the market value of the land in question. It ought to have been appreciated that Ex.P8 has been executed in respect of a site measuring 2100 Square feet for a consideration of Rs.1,28,000/- on 21.04.1997, whereas, the preliminary Notification was issued on 25.10.1996. Thus, the post Notification sale could not have been made the sole basis for enhancing the amount of compensation. It is also pointed out that the sale deed, Ex.P8 is not genuine as the sale consideration mentioned therein is abnormally high. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of Supreme Court in 'RAM SWAROOP AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS , 2017 2 SCC 413, 'ATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER , 2009 9 SCC 289, ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL WEST BENGAL VS. COLLECTOR, VARANASI , 1988 AIR(SC) 943, 'LAL CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER , 2009 15 SCC 769, UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS , 2019 9 SCC 687, MADISHETTI BALA RAMUL VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER , 2007 9 SCC 650 and a judgment of division bench of Gulbarga court in 'TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD. VS. NAGESH RAO AND ANOTHER DATED 19.03.2013 IN M.F.A.NO.6558/2011 and a judgment of this court in 'THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DISTRICT VS. DILIPKUMAR AND ORS. , 2011 1 KCCR 302.