THE ASST. COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. AMMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed by the Government aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 04.01.2012 passed by the Reference Court (Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bijapur) in LAC Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of 2010. In each one of the appeals, the claimants have filed the cross objections agitating their entitlement to higher compensation.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of construction of minor irrigation tank in Ittangihal village, Bijapur taluk. In that regard, the preliminary notification was issued on 29.01.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 25.10.2009 determining the market value at Rs. 28,000/ - per acre for dry land and Rs. 65,000/ - per acre for irrigated land. Dissatisfied with the meager awarding of the amounts, the claimants sought reference. The Reference Court based on the sales statistics method raised the market value to Rs. 18,59,000/ - per acre.

(3.) PER contra, Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants submits that the Reference Court has erred in deducting 65% towards the cost of development. He relies on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ashrafi and others vs. State of Haryana and others reported in : (2013) 5 SCC 527 in support of his submission that the deduction towards the cost of development cannot exceed 33.3%. He also relies on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Subh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and another reported in : (2010) 1 SCC 444 for advancing the submission that the purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor in the matter of determining the market value. Since the entire acquired land is being put to use, there is no need to earmark any part of the land for providing amenities in the layout. He has also relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh and others vs. State of Haryana reported in : (2014) 8 SCC 897 wherein the deduction of 40% made towards the development cost by the High Court was held to be bad and the deduction of 1/4th of market value made by the Reference Court was restored.