EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD Vs. MALLESHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the K. H. B.) through its Executive Engineer Gulbarga has assailed the correctness of the decision in L. A. C. 1/85 decided on 2-/4/1996 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga. The present respondents had assailed the award of the Land Acquisition officer who had fixed the market value at Rs. 13,000/- per acre. It may be relevant to point out that the claimants who are the original land owners had originally contended before the L. A. O. that they should be compensated at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per acre. Approximately 12 acres and 35 guntas of land had been acquired and when they approached the reference court for a variety of reasons, the claimants had contended that they are entitled to a compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per sq. ft which was the unit on the basis of which the reference court had done the computation. Before proceeding further, we need to express our very strong disapproval for the manner in which the computation has been done. The Supreme Court has repeatedly followed upon the practice of using unscientific units for computation in land acquisition cases and there are various dishonest reasons why these computations are done on a sq. ft. basis and unless this Court firmly deprecates this practice and issues a warning to the courts in question we will not be surprised if for some specious reasons we come across a case in which the calculation is done on a sq. inch basis. The Land Acquisition officer had done the computation on an acre basis and awarded the market value per acre, and this is the unit which the reference Court ought to have stuck to. The claimants had contended that having regard to a variety of factors they would be entitled to a to a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- per sq. ft and the learned Judge after carefully evaluating various contentions and the materials placed before him, enhanced the compensation which finally worked out to Rs. 1,75,800/- per acre. It is against this order that the present appeal has been directed. The original claimants have preferred cross objections in MFA Cr. Ob. 179/2002 which we have disposed of through a separate order on the ground that this Court cannot entertain it since it is time barred.

(2.) AS far as the present appeal is concerned, the appellants have filed I. A. I/02 whereby they have put forward the plea that certain additional evidence should be considered by this Court. According to the appellants the acquired land has been sub divided into plots or sites and allotted to a large number of persons and that these persons had brought one very important factor to the notice of the appellants which is most relevant for consideration of this appeal. They have produced before us certain documents viz. , the plaint in O. S. NO. 228/89 which was filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Gulbarga by the original land owner who incidently was an Advocate, against 102 persons. It is a suit for possession and mandatory injunction and the plaintiff has contended that these persons are encroachers/trees-passers, that they have virtually trees-passed into the land and put up various structures, that in addition to this they contend that they are alleged to have entered into an agreement of sale which according to the plaintiff was forged and consequently, the suit has been filed for two reliefs firstly, that the possession be restored to the plaintiff and secondly that the plaintiff be protected from any disturbances of the user of the property through a perma-nent injunction. The other important document which has been produced is a consent term which was filed before the Court whereby the suit in question has been compromised and the appellants have produced these documents for two reasons. Firstly, what they pointed out is that the original plot of land measured approximately 25 acres, that one half of it is the subject matter of the present acquisition and the other half is the subject matter of the suit. The Agreement to Sell is dated 1981 which is approximately at the same point of time when the Sec. 4 Notification was issued and the amount that was ultimately agreed upon works out to Rs. 31,000/- per acre. Secondly, what the appellants contend is that there could be no better comparison of the value than this transaction because it emanates out of a judicial proceeding and, it is a compromise order which was willingly and voluntarily entered into by both the parties and consequently, that the present claimants who are the recipients of the consideration in that arrangement cannot under any circumstances question the correctness of the figures involved.

(3.) THE Appellants counsel submitted that this evidence is not only relevant but crucial to the decision of the present appeal. That admittedly, these are subsequent developments, of which the appellants are not aware of during the proceeding before the reference court or when the appeal was filed, that they are certified copies of court documents and that consequently, this Court must permit these documents to be taken on record and be referred to and relied upon.