CHAIRMAN BLDE ASSOCIATION Vs. KASTURIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M .F.A. No. 356 of 2003; M.F.A. CROB No. 32 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 356 of 2003; M.F.A. No. 357 of 2003; M.F.A. CROB No. 27 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 357 of 2003; M.F.A. No. 358 of 2003; M.F.A. CROB No. 26 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 358 of 2003 are filed by the beneficiary and cross -objections by the landowners and M.F.A. Nos. 460 to 462 of 2003 are by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'LAO') calling in question the legality and validity of the common judgment and award dated 25 -9 -2002 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 145 of 1991; 144 of 1991 and 146 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur (for short, the 'Civil Court').

(2.) 19 acres 18 guntass in R.S. No. 138; 30 acres 32 guntass in R.S. No. 139 and 19 acres 30 guntas in R.S. No. 143 of Bhutnal Village, Bijapur Taluk (for short, the 'acquired lands') were acquired by the State in exercise of its 'eminent domain' power under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'Act') to wit, for purpose of construction of BLDE hospital, college and staff quarters, by issuance of preliminary notification, under Section 4(1) of the Act, published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 25 -2 -1988. The LAO, after conducting Award enquiry passed an award dated 31 -3 -1990 determining the market value at Rs. 10,000/ - per acre on the basis of sale statistics secured from the Office of the Sub -Registrar, concerned. The landowners, being dissatisfied with the said Award sought for reference of their claims for enhanced compensation. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Court, recorded the evidence of one of the landowners as P.W. 1, marked documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 23, the evidence of one witness for the beneficiary as D.W. 1 and marked documents as Exs. D. 1 to D. 10. The Civil Court appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary and in particular, placing reliance on Awards, Exs. P. 19, 20, 21 and 22 (P. 19 judgment and award dated 30 -8 -1985 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 243 of 1983, 977 of 1982 and 978 of 1982; P. 20 judgment and award dated 17 -4 -1998 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 280 and 281 of 1988; P. 21 judgment and award dated 15 -12 -1998 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 1287, 1288 and 1289 of 1986 and P. 22 judgment and award dated 10 -3 -1997 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 340, 344, 332, 333, 335 and 338 of 1985) determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 76,000/ - per acre. The beneficiary and the LAO being aggrieved by the said determination under the impugned judgment and award have filed the appeals while the landowners have filed cross -objections seeking enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 1,06,000/ - per acre.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V. Acharya would contend that the Civil Court committed an illegality in placing reliance on the Awards at Exts. P. 19; P. 20; P. 21 and P. 22 as also Ex. P. 23, the judgment in M.F.A. No. 1467 of 1987, dated 25 -3 -1994 of a Co -ordinate Bench of this Court to hold that the lands acquired therein, were comparable lands, though, they are situated nearer to the city, closer to the fort wall and within the developed area of Mahal -bagayat, while the acquired lands are situated outside the municipal limits and on the outskirts of Bijapur city. The learned Senior Counsel elaborating on the said contention, would point out with reference to the enlarged map of Ex. P. 14, being a map of the comprehensive development plan of Bijapur City (henceforth, for brevity referred to as 'CDP'), produced as an additional document along with I.A. I, which was allowed by an order dated 8 -1 -2004 of this Court, the exact location of the lands acquired under awards at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22, in comparison to the location of the acquired lands. In the alternative, he would contend, that, if the market value fixed under the Awards at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22 are to be considered for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands, in that event, the same needs to be scaled down, in view of distance, the location and lesser non -agricultural potentialities, after admitting 5% escalation, per year, as allowed by this Court in its judgment at Ex. P. 23. He would also contend that the method employed by the Civil Court in determining the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 76,000/ - by adding escalation of 10% per year to the market value of the lands acquired under each of the awards at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22 and thereafter taking an average of the same, is hitherto an unknown procedure, more so, when the landowners themselves placed reliance on Ex. P. 16 -sale deed dated 3 -7 -1986 conveying the lands measuring 2 acres 5 guntas in R.S. No. 871/16/1A of Bhutnal Village for a total sale consideration of Rs. 48,000/ -. However, he would hasten to admit, veritably that, the acquired lands were within the Bijapur Planning area and had non -agricultural potentiality. In addition, he sought to contend that the landowners were invested with occupancy rights during 1981, by the Land Tribunal, which did not permit alienation of the acquired lands for a period of 15 years therefrom, and the scope of enquiry ought to have been restricted to the consideration of the interest of the landowners in accordance with Section 21 of the Act. Dilating on the said contention, Sri B.V. Acharya took us through the provisions of Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'KLR Act') and Form 10, being the certificate of registration of a tenant as an occupant imposing the conditions/restrictions for transfer. The learned Senior Counsel would also, term as perverse, the rejection by the Civil Court of the sale deeds at Exs. D. 4 to D. 9 on the premise that the parties to the transactions were not examined, which, was contrary to the provisions of Section 51A of the Act and placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah, : [2001]2SCR141 . According to the learned Senior Counsel, the acquired lands were agricultural lands notified in the CDP as falling within the Green Belt Zone and Exs. D. 4 to D. 9, were contemporaneous Sale Deeds, conveying agricultural lands comparable both in terms of locus and time which could form the basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands. In addition, he would contend that in respect of the agricultural lands in R.S. No. 103/3A of Bhutnal Village of Bijapur Taluk, measuring 2 acres 2 guntas; 1 gunta and 1 acre acquired under Preliminary notifications dated 9 -6 -1980, 25 -2 -1982 and 31 -3 -1984 respectively for construction of by -pass road to N.H. 13 on the outskirts of Bijapur, the very same Civil Court, fixed the market value of the said lands at Rs. 46,000/ - per acre, by its judgment and award dated 9 -10 -2002, in L.A.C. No. 1664 of 1983, and batch, produced as additional document, along with I.A. No. I in these appeals, however, failed to apply the same yardstick while determining the market value of the acquired lands. Lastly, he would contend that the acquired lands cannot be converted to non -agricultural purposes without seeking the change of land user under Section 14 -A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as the same are notified by the authorities to lie in the Green Belt Zone and cannot be put to use for non -agricultural purposes immediately.