DISTRICT SURGEON Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A.No.7685/2013 has been filed by the beneficiary and M.F.A.No.4592/2014 has been filed by the State Government, whereas, M.F.A.No.5994/2013 has been filed by the claimant against the judgment dated 16.02.2013 passed by the trial court. Since, all the appeals arise out the common judgment, they were heard analogously are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the land owners were owners of the land measuring 1 acre 34 guntas of Survey No.39 situate in Gopala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk. The aforesaid land was needed for the purpose of expansion of District Government Mc Gann Hospital. Thereupon proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) were initiated and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 20.08.2002. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 28.04.2004. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 30.04.2005 assessed the market value of the land at Rs.2,71,640/- per acre and awarded a sum of Rs.4,34,624/- as compensation in respect of the land in question along with the statutory payments such as solatium and interest. Being aggrieved, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference court vide impugned judgment dated 16.02.2013 inter alia assessed the market value at Rs.1,000/- per square feet and assessed the market value of the land of the land owners at Rs.1,22,50,687/-. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the beneficiary in M.F.A.No.7685/2013 submitted that the reference court grossly erred in placing reliance on the circle rates while assessing the market value of the land in question without making any deduction on account of development charges. It is further submitted that the deduction from the market value of the land ought to have been made as the beneficiary has not utilized the entire site and was required to leave the land for the amenities. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL VS. COLLECTOR, VARANASI, AIR 1988 SC 943. It is also urged that as a general rule, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted towards development charges. In support of the above submission reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND ORS, (2008) 1 SCC 554.