SUNANDAMMA (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. M.V. PADMANABHA SHETTY STEP SON OF SUNANDAMMA AND M.V. MANJUNATHA SON OF SUNANDAMMA) Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT in the Reference Court is the appellant. She was the owner of land to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy. No. 90/1 and an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy. No. 90/2 of Kelagote Village, Chitradurga Taluk, which were acquired pursuant to a preliminary Notification dated 16.9.82 issued under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1966, which is analogous to Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'the act'). After the final declaration, the possession of the acquired property was taken by the competent authority on 27.7.85. The Land Acquisition Officer, passed the award under Section 11 of the act at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per acre on 24.12.87. On an application filed under Section 18(1)(a) of Land Acquisition Act by the claimant, seeking reference to the Civil Court, for determination of the market value of the acquired property, a reference was made. The Reference Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act, fixed the compensation amount at Rs. 45,000/ - per acre and passed an award. It allowed additional market value @ 12% from 16.9.82, the date of preliminary Notification, till the date of award and solatium @ 30% on the enhanced market value under Section 23(2) of the Act and further ordered for payment of Interest at 9% for the first year from the date of taking possession and at 15% thereafter, till the award amount is paid or deposited. However, Reference Court ordered that, the claimant shall not be entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value. An appeal under Section 54 of the Act was filed by the appellant in the District Court at Chitradurga. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal in part, affirming the determination of market value of the acquired land at Rs. 45,000/ - per acre and setting aside the refusal to order payment of interest on solatium and additional market value. It has ordered and decreed that, the claimant shall be entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value on the compensation amount determined at Rs. 45,000/ - per acre. Questioning the Judgment and Award passed in M.A. No. 7/01 dated 5.3.03 and to modify the same and award market value at Rs. 80,000/ - per acre, together with all statutory benefits as per law, this second appeal has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) PER contra, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that, the land in question is an agricultural land and has no similarity for the land acquired and covered under Ex.P3. He contended that, the award in MFA No. 7970/02 is in respect of a later acquisition, also for a different purpose and the same cannot be the basis for determination of market value of the property involved in this appeal. Learned Counsel pointed out that, the appellant had valued the acquired property in M.A. No. 7/01 before the lower Appellate Court at Rs. 65,000/ -per acre and had claimed the compensation amount accordingly, and hence, the claim now made at Rs. 80,000/ - per acre is untenable. He contended that, the Reference Court and the lower Appellate Court have concurrently found that, the market value of the acquired land based on its potentiality is Rs. 45,000/ - per acre and It is not a case of ignoring any material evidence on record or a case of perversity in appreciating the evidence on record, to call for interference in this appeal. Learned Counsel contended that, possession was taken on 27.7.85 and the award was passed later i.e., on 24.12.87. Hence, interest @ 12% applicable in terms of Section 23(1 -A) of the Act is payable only up to 27.7.85 and not till the date of passing of the award on 24.12.87. He contended that, since the awarding of interest after 27.7.85 till the date of award on 24.12.87 is contrary to the statute, is null and void and the same may be modified. Learned Counsel pointed out that, there was delay of 972 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned conditionally on 23.7.07 and even if any enhancement is called for, the interest for the delayed period of 972 days cannot be allowed, in view of the order passed on 23.7.07. He made submissions in support of the impugned award passed by the lower Appellate Court, in all other respects.