AZIZ PASHA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A.No.1010/2014 has been filed by the land owners whereas M.F.A.NO.2050/2014 has been filed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.11.2013, passed by the reference Court. In order to appreciate the appellants' challenge to the impugned judgment, few facts need mention, which are stated infra:

(2.) The appellants in M.F.A.NO.1010/2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants' for short) were owners of land bearing Sy.No.12 measuring 4 acres and 43 guntas situate at Dodda-Hunsur, Kasaba Hobli, Hunsur Taluk. The aforesaid land was required by appellants in M.F.A.NO.2050/2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents' for short) for the purpose of construction of new bus stand. Thereupon a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 14.08.2003. The State Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 14.03.2005, by which market value of the land of the appellants was assessed at Rs.60,000/- per acre. The possession of the land in question was taken on 05.04.2005. The appellants thereafter sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference court vide judgment dated 06.11.2013 enhanced the compensation in LAC No.80/2011 in respect of land measuring 1 acre to Rs.27,87,904/- and in respect of land measuring 3 acres and 33 guntas the compensation was enhanced to Rs.19,16,684/-. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire lands of the appellants measuring 4 acres 33 guntas was acquired and was utilized for the purposes of construction of the bus stand. Therefore, the trial court grossly erred in dividing the property in question into two and applying belting system for the purpose of assessing the market value. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in 'TRISHALA JAIN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.' AIR 2011 SC 2458 and 'CHAKAS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB', AIR 2011 SCW 5795 It is further submitted that on the basis of the guideline value, the market value of the property in question ought to have been fixed at Rs.160/- per square feet. It has also been submitted that deduction towards development charges in a well developed area has to be only to the extent of 10 percent. It is contended that from the perusal of the judgment of the trial court itself, it is evident that the land in question in a developed area surrounded by various government offices and business establishments. The respondent No.2 in his evidence has further submitted that the property is situate in a business area. It is also pointed out that the market value of the property is much more than the market value prescribed in the guideline and in this connection, reference has been made to Ex.P1 viz., an exchange deed executed between appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 under which the respondent has valued the site measuring 60x40 feet for a consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs. Therefore, the market value as per Ex.P1 works out to Rs.430/- per square feet. It is also pointed out that the property covered under the exchange deed Ex.P1 forms part of the same survey number of Dodda- Hunsuru Village, which is acquired by respondent No.2.