SIDDANAGOUDA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of market value as against the market value fixed by the Reference Court in LAC No. 172 of 2003. The brief facts are, that the land belonging to the appellant in Sy. No. 264/2 measuring 5 acres 35 guntas at Koppal Village of Koppal Taluk and Koppal District, was acquired for the purpose of extension of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner. The acquisition was initiated under preliminary notification dated 25-11-2000 published in the gazette on 7-12-2000. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value at Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre to the extent of 4 acres 11 guntas and Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre to the extent of 1 acre 24 guntas. The appellant was before the Reference Court seeking enhancement of the market value. The Reference Court after considering the rival contentions has fixed the market value at Rs. 10,01,800/- per acre and the statutory benefits accordingly. The appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the same.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant while seeking enhancement would contend that, the Reference Court was not justified in taking into consideration the value as has been done since the guidance value fixed as per the notification itself is Rs. 95/- per sq. ft. in respect of commercial buildings. It is his further case that, the Court below was not justified in awarding the very same value which was indicated in the order passed by this Court which was marked as Ex. P. 14. In that regard, it is contended that the said market value determined was in respect of the land for which the preliminary notification was issued on 27-1-2000 and in that view considering that the instant land was acquired by the preliminary notification dated 25-11-2000 the escalation should have been taken into consideration. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that deduction for development charges taken into consideration at 53% is on the higher side and that same requires to be reduced. It is therefore contended that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for modification.

(3.) Learned Government Advocate would however seek to sustain the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. It is contended that when the remaining extent of land belonging to the appellant has been acquired for the same purpose for which it was done earlier i.e., for establishing the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, and that this Court while considering the notification at the first instance has arrived at a conclusion on all aspects of the matter and has fixed the market value, the Reference Court was justified in relying on the document at Ex. P. 14. It is contended that no sufficient evidence has been placed before this Court to take a different view and even in respect of escalation which has been claimed no document has been relied and as such the judgment and award does not call for interference. He therefore, contends that appeal is liable to be rejected.