SANNABASAPPA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsels on both sides. What is principally submitted by the appellant's learned Counsel in this case is that this was an acquisition that pertained to 4 acres of land in Koppal Town which was undertaken in the year 1989 and that the appellant has done what is expected of him by producing a sale deed of the year 1989 which was almost contemporaneous with the 4 (1) Notification. Ex. P. 9 is in relation to a plot of land which was sold for Rs. 13,500/- but the plot measured only 30' x 40' and it works out to Rs. 11. 25 per sq. ft. Mr. Rayaraddi's submission is that the law requires of the party asking for the enhancement to produce requisite evidence that could be a guide or a barometer to the Reference Court for purposes of fixing the market value. He was probably right when he points out that in a given situation there may not be many transactions that have taken place because there are two aspects, the first being that it should be a sale that has taken place as close as possible to the date of acquisition and secondly, it should be as far as possible a similarly situated land. If the land is situated very far away or if there are gross dissimilarities between the acquired land and the land that is reflected in the sale transaction then, it is not of very much assistance to the Court. In this instance, the learned Counsel brings it to our notice that even though the Reference court has considerably reduced the figure from Rs. 11. 25 to Rs. 3 per sq. ft. principally on the ground that the acquired plot is more than one kilometre away from the other one and furthermore because that plot was a very small one measuring only 30' x 40' and the learned Judge was probably justified in concluding that the price paid for a very small plot of land would necessarily be very much higher than what a compact area of 4 acres would fetch.

(2.) AT this stage, the learned Government Pleader points out to us that this is one more case in which the Reference Court has fixed the compensation on a square foot basis and he has vehemently submitted that this Court must deprecate this particular formula being adopted. We do not need to draw attention to the different decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court wherein the Courts have repeatedly deprecated and disapproved of the fixation of the value on square foot basis when the Special Land Acquisition Officer has used the acre as the unit. The reason for this is because there is a hidden potential for a lot of unfairness to the acquiring authority and for improper orders being passed because on paper the figure which is indicated on a square foot basis when multiplied to take acre value works out to be immensely higher. There is absolutely no justification for the use of the smaller units even if in the sale deeds or other documents produced or in the evidence led there is a reference to the square foot basis, it is only fair and proper that the Reference Court must stick to the same unit as was adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The reason for this is because invariably when these proceedings come up to the High Court it is easy for the Court to straightaway assess as to what is the level of enhancement that has been granted. We accordingly uphold the submission canvassed by the learned Government Pleader who has been repeatedly bringing this fact to the notice of this Court and since, despite all the decisions and all the observations made by the High Court the reference Courts are still proceeding on this wrong basis we direct that a copy of this judgment be circulated to all the Courts handling land acquisition references with a direction that hereinafter no such errors be committed.

(3.) WITH regard to the valuation aspect, the appellant's learned Counsel submitted before us that from the evidence that has come on record, irrespective of the fact that the two plots are approximately one kilometre apart, that what has been established by the appellant is that the acquired land is in the midst of a very well-developed area. His submission therefore is that even though it is registered as an agricultural land in the records that this would make absolutely no difference because the non-agricultural potential of the land is extremely high. This aspect of the matter will have to be taken into consideration by us because the learned Government Pleader submitted that the value of agricultural land is necessarily lower than the value of urban land and that the plot which was sold was obviously a plot for residential or commercial purposes which would probably fetch ten times the value of agricultural land. The learned Government Pleader submitted before us that the reference Court was fully justified in having arrived at the base figure of Rs. 3 per sq. ft. and to have thereafter reduced the amount on the basis of the development expenditure and finally awarded Rs. 1. 10 per sq. ft. His submission is that the Courts have been consistently pointing out and this is very true, that the development expenditure in relation to the plots that are acquired is extremely high that it is capital intensive because everything from roads to drainage to electricity to all the infrastructural facilities even if they have got to be provided from the vicinity do involve a heavy expenditure and that secondly, he has cited instances where the Supreme Court has approved of deduction as high as 60 per cent. Our High Court has pointed out in K. S. Shivadevamma and Others v Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, davanagere and Another, that the development expenditure could be as high as 55 per cent. The submission canvassed therefore is that this is not a case which calls for any interference. We have assessed the various aspects and in our considered view, what needs to be taken cognizance of is that the price of Rs. 11. 25 per sq. ft. which was realised in relation to ex. P. 9 would hold good as far as the very small plot measuring 30' x 40' is concerned. In this instance we are concerned with a much bigger area of 4 acres and therefore, that price would necessarily have to be considerably discounted. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this land having regard to its location does have very high non-agricultural potential and consequently, we revise the base figure of rs. 3/- per sq. ft. which has been fixed by the Reference Court to Rs. 6/-per sq. ft. Despite very strong protest from the appellant's learned Counsel who maintained that having regard to the development in the area, the infrastructural expenditure would be very minimum, we are not prepared to accept the submission because the agricultural land would require a lot of capital expenditure before it can be put to the use for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we apply a deduction of 50 per cent under the head of development expenses which leaves us with the figure of Rs. 3 per sq. ft. In our considered view, the figure of rs. 1. 10 per sq. ft. fixed by the Reference Court would require to be enhanced to Rs. 3 per sq. ft. We need to reiterate here that it is only for purposes of consistency and only because the Reference Court has all through the judgment proceeded on the square foot basis while revising that order that we have followed the same unit despite our disapproval with regard to the use of the smaller unit which has been expressed earlier which still holds good and we do maintain that in all cases hereinafter, the Reference Courts will have to stick to the larger unit as used by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.